Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

LAW AND ORDER (MAINTENANCE).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the unrest and sedition which has continued in British India of recent years, he will consult with the rulers of Indian States in whose territories law and order has been well maintained as to common measures being taken against these disruptive elements?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I see no reason for suggesting to the authorities in India, who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order, that they should make any special approach to the rulers of Indian States.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received copies of resolutions passed by the Moslem Federation at Delhi and toy landholders of the United Provinces at Lucknow deploring the efforts by Congress leaders to disturb the peace of village life in India and denouncing the spirit of revolution and Communism gradually creeping over the country; what steps the Government of India is taking in the country to counteract these activities; and whether he will see that both these bodies have representation on the proposed round table conference?

Mr. BENN: I have seen Press reports of the resolutions referred to. Answers to the other questions will be found in the Viceroy's speech of 25th January and his proclamation on 1st November last.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention
drawn to a very successful meeting of the Moslem Federation outside Delhi, in the country, in which they exposed the propaganda of Ghandi and his people, and will he not support these loyal bodies in order to get law and order in the villages of India?

Mr. BENN: I did see a report of the meeting.

AIRSHIP BASES.

Major GRAHAM POLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made in developing the sites acquired by the Government of India for airship bases at Calcutta and Bombay; and of the site for an aerodrome at Gaya?

Mr. BENN: As regards the first part of the question, I am still awaiting information from the Government of India. The landing ground at Gaya is already in use. It is well laid out and in order, but occasionally under water after heavy rain.

PRISON ADMINISTRATION.

Major POLE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made in the consideration by the central and provincial Governments of the question of remodelling the rules of prison administration in India, especially as regards special prisoners?

Mr. BENN: I understand the Government of India expect to be in a position to arrive at a decision very shortly.

ROYAL INDIAN MARINE (SLOOP).

Major POLE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India if any contribution is provided for in the Indian Budget Estimates for the year 1929–30 in respect of the sloop ordered by the Government of India for the Royal Indian Marine; and when it is expected that the sloop will be completed and ready to be placed in service?

Mr. BENN: The answer to the first part is 8 lakhs of rupees, and to the second, next autumn.

CAPITAL (EXPORTS AND IMPORTS).

Earl WINTERTON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India if any figures are available in regard to the imports into and exports of private capital from British
India; and, if so, if he will state what is the aggregate sum of each amount, respectively, for the period 1st July to 31st December, 1929, inclusive?

Mr. BENN: There are no such figures in existence and no means are available by which they could be estimated with any reasonable claim to accuracy. I regret, therefore, that I cannot give the Noble Lord the information for which he asks.

Earl WINTERTON: Is there any truth in the reports that there has been undue export of capital from India within the last few months? Has the right hon. Gentleman any information which deals with that matter?

Mr. BENN: The Noble Lord knows that it is a complicated and difficult and obscure subject, and perhaps I had better leave it with the answer that I have given.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Has it not been reported to the right hon. Gentleman as the case that since his statement in this country regarding Indian loans this export of capital has largely stopped?

Mr. BENN: I am glad to say that for many weeks past Indian credit has steadily improved.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER (DISTURBANCE).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information with regard to tribal unrest on the Indian frontier and in Afghanistan; whether the Kabul-Peshawar road is still open; and when it is expected that His Majesty's Minister will be able to proceed to Kabul?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have been asked to reply. A certain section of the Shinwari tribe captured the Afghan frontier post of Spina Kotha, on the Kabul-Peshawar road on the 10th February, but this post was recaptured by Afghan regulars on the 13th February. Communication on the road was suspended during this disturbance, but so far as I am aware will now be restored. His Majesty's Minister left London this morning, and it is expected that he will be able to reach Kabul sometime in March.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

FLEET MOVEMENTS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has had any information from the Soviet Ambassador regarding the transfer of Russian men-of-war from the Baltic to the Black Sea; and whether he is communicating with the other signatories to the Treaty of Lausanne in relation thereto?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

BRITISH RELATIONS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the subjects he has now discussed with the Soviet Ambassador other than those arising out of the proposed treaty?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As I have already mentioned to the House the subjects discussed with the Soviet Ambassador, I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet raised with the Soviet Ambassador the question of religious persecution in Russia?

Mr. HENDERSON: Before I raise such a subject, I shall have to do my best to ascertain the facts.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Are we to understand that it is left to this Government to depart from the glorious tradition of Britain to protect honest men who desire to worship God in their own way?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman the only man in England who does not know the facts?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Last July the right hon. Gentleman promised in this House that as soon as diplomatic relations were resumed he would take up the case of the persecution of 100 Baptist pastors and teachers, exiled or in prison, and, seeing that the facts were not in dispute in July and that names could be given, will the right hon. Gentleman implement the promise?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes. If the hon. Member will give me any names, I shall be delighted to do all I can.

Mr. SAMUEL: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to make no attempt to protect men who try to worship God according to their own consciences? Let us know definitely where we are?

Mr. HENDERSON: That supplementary question is not justified by my answer.

Mr. MATTERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman please ascertain what was the action of the British Government in 1906—

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any joint committees have been appointed under Paragraph 4 of the Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, signed by himself and M. Dovgalevsky: and, if so, whether he can state the names of the persons appointed?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, Sir. The negotiations have not yet advanced sufficiently to necessitate the assistance of such committees, but their formation to examine the more technical questions is under consideration.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what conversations have taken place?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid I cannot.

CHEKA AGENTS (PASSPORT VISAS).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been issued to the British diplomatic representatives in the Soviet Republic as regards the granting of British visas to officials or agents of the Cheka: and whether any such visas have yet been granted to members of this organisation since June, 1929?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Applications for ordinary visas—as opposed to diplomatic and transit visas—are referred to His Majesty's Government for decision, and accordingly no instructions have been issued to the British officials in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Having regard to the nature of the
organisation referred to, I am not in a position to reply to the second part of the question.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in any forms that they have to fill up, it is stated whether or not they are police officers of a certain category or general category?

Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, I will get the information.

RELIGIOUS SITUATION.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received through the British Legation to the Holy See from the Pope in regard to the recent persecution of Christians in Russia; and what reply has been made by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it to be assumed that the public appeal made by the Pope was not communicated to the British Legation?

Viscount ELMLEY: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a Report from the British Ambassador at Moscow on the religious situation in Russia?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have as yet received only a preliminary despatch from His Majesty's Ambassador who, however, is furnishing me with a Report in the near future.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to communicate to the House a summary of this despatch and exactly what the British representative has said?

Mr. HENDERSON: To begin with, I could not lay before the House a summary, because I have been reminded already that I must lay these things before the House in full; and it must be perfectly obvious that I cannot commit myself to any course until I have received the Report.

Viscount ELMLEY: When will the Report be published?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have just given the answer.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the Report?

Mr. THURTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the lie direct which has been given by Russia to the statement made against her?

Mr. HAYCOCK: If this statement turn out to be a lie, will there be any protection in the future against this kind of lying propaganda?

PROPAGANDA.

Sir K. WOOD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to recent publications of the Soviet official newspaper "Pravda," containing adverse statements in relation to this country and the Government, asserting that 320,000,000 population of India were now marching under the red flag towards freedom from British rule, and that in the Near East is rapidly approaching a revolution which will make an end of the imperialistic plans of the Labour Government; and what action he has taken in the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: My Department has been unable to identify the article described by the right hon. Gentleman. But even if such an article has been published in the Russian Press, I do not consider that it calls for any action on my part.

Sir. K. WOOD: Do I understand from the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the statement appeared, but that he is going to take no action whatever; and is he still going to permit the agreement to be flagrantly broken?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already stated the Government's position to the House. The Government must be the judge in the first instance.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Surely the Government of this country are not in a position to prevent a Russian Government paper saying that millions of workers in India are marching under the red flag, any more than they can prevent English newspapers from saying that millions of peasants in Russia are marching under the white flag.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Comintern, the executive committee of the Red International in Moscow, has recently secured the formation in this country of a body called the London Industrial Council, which has entered into an agreement with the Moscow Council of Trade Unions for securing the establishment of revolutionary factory organisation here; and whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what action in the matter?

Mr. SMITHERS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the formation of the London Industrial Council, in view of its pledge to carry on constant propaganda and to secure the establishment of revolutionary organisations; and, in view of its connection with the Comintern, will be make this a subject of protest to the Soviet Government as a breach of the protocol of last October?

Mr. HENDERSON: The London Industrial Council is not a recent creation, according to my information. I understand that it was inaugurated in April last, in opposition to the London Trades Council. It is not of sufficient importance to merit undue attention, or to call for a protest.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is of sufficient importance; and, in view of the fact that, at least, there has been propaganda by this body, will he consider if that is not of sufficient importance to justify a protest being made under the Protocol of last October?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already said that I did not think it was of sufficient importance to make a protest about it, but there might be a difference of opinion as to its value between the hon. Member and myself.

Mr. SANDERS: In making inquiries about these shadow bodies, will the right hon. Gentleman try to ascertain the extent to which they are promoted by Tory influence and Tory money?

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER- LAMPSON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the head of the Soviet Government
that it is the intention of that Government to urge the proletariat abroad to decisive revolutionary battles at once; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have seen reports of statements alleged to have been made in the Soviet Union on the lines suggested. I do not consider that any action on the part of His Majesty's Government is called for in regard to reported statements in another country.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that M. Stalin's statement is in accordance, either with the letter or the spirit of the Protocol?

Mr. HENDERSON: There again, of course, it is a matter of debate as to whether it is of importance or not; but, as I have already said, if I had to take notice of all the statements made in this or any other country, I should be wholly employed.

Captain EDEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is very much more important than any preceding statement—that it is not a statement in a newspaper, but a statement by the head of the Government?

Mr. HENDERSON: It may be that there is a certain importance to be attached to it, but not sufficient for me to make a protest.

Captain EDEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that a statement made by the Prime Minister of this country was of importance?

BRITISH FIRMS (CONCESSIONS).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Soviet authorities have made any concessions or are negotiating any concessions to British firms in connection with the municipal authorities of the larger cities in Russia?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have no information on the subject.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to do what was promised at the Election and advance British industry in Russia, in these respects?

Mr. HENDERSON: We are doing a great deal to advance British industry in Russia?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be so kind as to tell us what he has been doing?

Mr. HENDERSON: Not in answer to a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Mr. SMITHERS: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the change of government in Mexico, he will renew his efforts to obtain payment of capital and interest on debts owing to investors in this country?

Sir A. KNOX: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any communication on behalf of the British bondholders of Mexican national debt bonds and of bonds of the national railroads of Mexico upon which the Mexican Government has defaulted; and whether, in any case, he has notified the organisation representing such bondholders that he is prepared to take up their case with the Mexican Government?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No such request has reached His Majesty's Government and, as I have stated on other occasions, His Majesty's Government would not be in a position to take any steps in regard to these defaults unless requested to do so by the properly qualified agents of the British bondholders concerned. I consider that, in the first place, it is for the agents of the bondholders, who are fully qualified to decide their course of action, to put forward a request if they see fit to do so, rather than for His Majesty's Government to invite one.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can we take it that the Foreign Secretary means that he is not to take the initiative in protecting the interests of British bondholders?

Mr. MARCH: Send a man-of-war over.

Mr. SMITHERS: I wish they would.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZAMBESI BRIDGE.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations have taken place with
the Portuguese Government with regard to the construction of the Zambesi bridge and the conditions under which it is being built; and, if so, will he state their nature?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: On the 2nd July last His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Lisbon informed the Portuguese Government that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom had, for some time past, been considering the question of the construction of a bridge over the River Zambesi, and that they were contemplating the possibility of guaranteeing from Imperial Funds the sums necessary for the building of such a bridge. Mr. Osborne expressed the hope that in the event of His Majesty's Government deciding to participate in the venture, the Portuguese Government would facilitate the construction of the bridge, and would in general extend their goodwill towards the scheme. In a reply, dated the 1st August last, the Portuguese Government pointed out that proper guarantees had already been given in connection with the existing concession. The Portuguese Government added that, in the absence of further particulars, they could not make any definite statement, but they gave an assurance that they were anxious to facilitate the projected enterprise in every way possible.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand that there has been little or no progress since August, and is there any likelihood of the Portuguese Government making any contribution towards the bridge?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. HANNON: In the event of this project being proceeded with, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get the contracts brought to this country as much as possible?

Mr. HENDERSON: That is what any sensible person would do.

Mr. BROCKWAY: In the conditions is there included a prohibition of forced labour and child labour, according to the promise given when the Bill was in the House of Commons?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has there been any progress since August?

Mr. HENDERSON: It is always difficult to say what is progress in the opinion of some hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS).

Sir A. KNOX: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Report has been made by the British representatives in Japan about the proceedings of the Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations in Japan last October; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of the Report?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The British delegates to the Conference were not representatives of His Majesty's Government, although His Majesty's Government were duly informed of the meeting of the Conference and of the names of the British delegates who would attend, including that of the late Lord Chancellor. I have received no Report from them on the proceedings of the Conference, nor in the circumstances do I expect to receive one. I understand that a summary of the proceedings will be published in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (BRITISH VISAS).

Commander SOUTHBY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names and nationalities of persons in respect of whom instructions have been issued that their passports are not to be vised for this country since 1st July, 1929?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir; it would not be in the public interest to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN STATES (DEBTS).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposals have been made towards the repayment of the loans for industrial purposes incurred by certain Southern States, now forming part of the United States of America, before the civil war, and the repayment of which was repudiated: and what is the amount of principal, with interest to date, due to bondholders in this country in respect of such debts?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part I would refer the hon. Member to the Council of Foreign Bondholders, who are in possession of such information as is available on this subject.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Council of Foreign Bondholders have often made representations to the right hon. Gentleman and previous Foreign Secretaries, and, seeing that these States have definitely repudiated their debts, and that the United States have the responsibility, can be not made representations on the matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: That being so, hon. Members opposite must not complain of continuity of policy.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Let us have it on Russia.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FOREIGN TRADE.

Mr. HANNON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a communication from the National Union of Manufacturers expressing the view that the Foreign Office should take a more active interest in matters relating to the extension of British trade in foreign countries and give special attention to the case of large contracts which, through diplomatic intervention, might be brought to this country and contribute to the relief of unemployment; and if the diplomatic influence of the Foreign Office will be more actively employed in future in watching over the interests of British trade in foreign countries?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have received the communication referred to. I can assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's representatives are at all times prepared to give all proper support to the efforts of British exporters to secure contracts and orders. The question of strengthening the commercial side of the diplomatic staff in various countries is, as has already been announced, being considered by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House the
steps he is taking to strengthen our commercial representation abroad with a view to increasing British trade?

Mr. MILLS: And will he also remind the House that it was the action of the Geddes Committee, supported by the hon. Member opposite, which robbed us of our Consular Service?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already said, in reply to questions, that we are considering an increase of the staff. With regard to the diplomatic representatives, I have made it my business, when they have called upon me, during leave, to impress upon them the importance of giving all the attention they possibly can to the increase of British trade.

Mr. HANNON: Thank you.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE REPRESENTATIVES).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 33.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he proposes to post a representative of the commercial diplomatic service at San Francisco in order to push British trade in the Western States of the United States of America?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The commercial work of the Consular officers in the Western States of the United States has recently been placed under the supervision of the Consul-General at San Francisco, to whose staff an additional officer has been appointed, who will have the rank of Consul and will devote his whole time to commercial work. In view of these recent changes, I do not consider that any farther increase in commercial representation in the Western States is at present necessary.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it the case that the Consul-General at San Francisco has full power to act himself, or must he act under the Commercial Counsellor at Washington?

Mr. GILLETT: Not under the Commercial Counsellor at Washington.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Consul-General at San Francisco can take action on his own initiative to arrange for the development of business with this country in that part of the world?

Mr. GILLETT: Certainly, that is my intention.

Major NATHAN: 41.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department by how many trade commissioners his Department is represented in the United States of America; and by how many such officials the United States of America is represented in this country?

Mr. GILLETT: His Majesty's Government are represented in the United States by a Commercial Counsellor and two commercial secretaries. The United States Government are represented in this country at the present time by an acting Commercial Attaché, an Assistant Commercial Attaché, five trade commissioners and two assistant trade commissioners. These numbers are, however, not constant.

Major NATHAN: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government will not, in commercial competition, as in naval competition, pursue a policy of parity?

Mr. GILLETT: That is what we have in mind, to some extent at any rate.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate what steps he has taken to increase and to expand our commercial representation in the United States with the object of getting more business?

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (COMMITTEE).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 34.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how many invitations have been issued this year to prospective buyers from overseas to attend the British Industries Fair; how many acceptances have been received: and how these figures compare with those at a similar period last year?

Mr. GILLETT: 49,000 invitation cards have been issued to prospective buyers from overseas to attend the British Industries Fair of 1930. In addition, 14,025 invitation cards have been sent to the Department's overseas officers for distribution. These figures were approximately the same in respect of the 1929 Fair. 573 acceptances have been received, as compared with 874 acceptances at a similar period last year, and the Department has been informed that 221 buyers have instructed their agents in this country to attend the Fair. This
figure compares with 237 at a similar period last year. In addition to these figures, the Department has been informed that organised parties of business men from Denmark, Germany, and the United States of America will visit the Fair. The party from Denmark numbers several hundreds.

Mr. HACKING: Can the hon. Gentleman give any reason for the falling off in acceptances?

Mr. GILLETT: I am afraid I cannot.

Mr. HACKING: 40.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is in a position to give the names of the members of the Committee which His Majesty's Government have set up to examine certain matters affecting the organisation of the British Industries Fair; and whether the Committee has yet met?

Mr. GILLETT: Yes, Sir, the following gentlemen have accepted the invitation of His Majesty's Government to serve on the Committee:

The Right Hon. Viscount Chelmsford (Chairman).
The Right Hon. Lord Barnby.
Mr. John Beard.
Alderman Sir Percival Bower.
Sir John Corcoran.
Sir Robert Donald.
Sir William J. Larke.
Mr. Guy Locock.
Sir Sydney Skinner.
Sir Gilbert Vyle.
Mr. Robert Waddington.

In reply to the second part of the question, the Committee have already held a preliminary meeting.

Mr. HACKING: Will the hon. Gentleman ask them to expedite their report, so that it may be in the possession of hon. Members in plenty of time to make arrangements for the next Fair?

Mr. GILLETT: I think there will be plenty of opportunity—probably more than hon. Members will require.

EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIA).

Mr. HACKING: 35.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any applications under the export credit scheme, as applying to Soviet Russia, have been refused by his Department?

Mr. GILLETT: The answer is in the affirmative.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence to show that this scheme is resulting in increased employment in this country?

Mr. GILLETT: The usual figures are published, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has no doubt seen, and they indicate that it is increasing.

Mr. HACKING: Can the hon. Gentleman say why any applications have been refused when the risk is always the same, there being only one importer into Russia?

Mr. GILLETT: In most cases it was a question of the length of period for which the advances were wanted.

Mr. MILLS: Is it not a fact that, while credits have been refused by the Advisory Committee of the Overseas Trade Department, these long-term credits have been given, and that 1,800 tractor orders have recently been placed with Ellis's of Milwaukee which might have gone to Vickers, of Crayford, on the same basis?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 36.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, seeing that there is a surplus of £17,000,000 in credits from the exports of Russia to this country over the imports from this country into Russia, he will take steps, by establishing a clearing house for Anglo-Russian trade, so that this £17,000,000 can be used to finance our exports to Russia instead of its being used to finance exports from Germany and the United States of America to Russia?

Mr. GILLETT: It rests with the Soviet Government alone to decide from what countries to purchase their imported requirements. I fear that the steps proposed by the hon. and gallant Member are not feasible.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these arrangements are very one-sided? The Russian Government regulate imports and exports, and can he not come to some arrangement by which the £17,000,000 surplus in this country will be used to benefit our own people and our own manufacturers?

Mr. GILLETT: The most effective way is to increase our exports, and that is taking place.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Why do the Russian Government require credit under the export credit scheme, having regard to the credit balance which they have in the country already?

Commander BELLAIRS: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the system pursued in Germany with regard to Russian exports to Germany and German exports to Russia?

Mr. GILLETT: I shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Member can give me any information which may be useful.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 38.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the fact that money can be borrowed for short periods upon Soviet bills of exchange on the security of the British Government's guarantee given to the Soviet's trading organisation under the Export Credits Scheme, he will introduce such modifications into the Scheme as will bring it into conformity with the Foreign Secretary's statement of 6th January to the effect that a British Government guarantee of a loan raised by any foreign Government would be contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. GILLETT: No, Sir. As I explained to the House on the 5th February during the Debate on trade with Russia, I entirely dissent from this view.
In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the extension of the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme in its present form to Russia is not inconsistent with their policy in refusing to guarantee a loan raised by a foreign Government.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: If that is so, why have the Government refused to grant facilities to enable the Soviet delegation to buy 3,000,000 pairs of footwear from Northampton manufacturers; and is the hon. Gentleman aware that a delegation from Northampton waited upon the Chancellor of the Duchy and that he refused to give the guarantee of Soviet credit? What is the reason?

Mr. GILLETT: The hon. Member should put that question to my hon. Friend.

Mr. SAMUEL: But it comes under the Overseas Trade Department. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman knows nothing whatever about this export business?

Mr. GILLETT: I am not aware of the actual proposals to which the hon. Member is referring, but if he will give me information, I will look into it.

Mr. SAMUEL: May I send the hon. Member information as stated by Mr. Gribble, late Labour candidate for Northampton, upon this matter?

Mr. GILLETT: I shall be delighted to have it.

Sir W. DAVISON: 39.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether His Majesty's Government has during the past six months, guaranteed the credit of any foreign Government or any foreign Government's trading organisation other than that of the Russian Soviet Government?

Mr. GILLETT: The answer is in the affirmative.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can we know the names of the other Governments?

Mr. GILLETT: No. It would not be advisable to make a public announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SEVEN-YEARS' LIMIT.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 29.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the entire abolition of the seven-years' limit regulations for war pensions or if he intends to continue to rely on the administrative discretion allowed for dealing with these cases in the regulations as at present in force?

Mr. PARKINSON (Lord of the Treasury): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, through indisposition, I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) on 26th November last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Captain BALFOUR: Can the hon. Gentleman say if there is any difference at all between the policy of the present Government and that of the last Government?

Mr. PARKINSON: The hon. and gallant Member had better put down another question to the head of the Department.

Mr. BEAUMONT: 31.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether there is any difference in the treatment of the widow of an ex-service man dying more than seven years after discharge and the widow of a man dying within that period; and, if so, whether he proposes to make any alterations to bring the two cases into line?

Mr. PARKINSON: The terms on which pension may be granted in the two types of cases referred to are, contained in Articles 11 and 17, respectively, of the Royal Warrant of December, 1919, as amended by the Royal Warrant of 1924. I am sending the hon. Member copies for convenience of reference. No alteration in these Articles is in contemplation.

DISABILITY PENSION (EX-SERGEANT M. O'CONNELL).

Mr. OLIVER BALDWIN: 30.
asked the Minister of Pensions why ex-Sergeant M. O'Connell, late 1st battalion Irish Guards, discharged 27th November, 1917, and still under treatment for wounds received in action, has no disability pension?

Mr. PARKINSON: My hon. Friend has been misinformed. Mr. O'Connell is in receipt of a permanent disability pension awarded under Article 1163 of the Army Pay Warrant, 1914.

DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS (MISS E. M. HURLEY).

Mr. CADOGAN: 32.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Miss Ethel M. Hurley, an orphan, formerly dependent upon her two brothers, who supported her out of their Army pay until they were both killed in action, and who is now existing on the charity of a community of nuns and is liable to be discharged at any time and to become destitute; and whether he will see his way to grant her a pension under Article 22 (i) of the Royal Warrant of 1919, as
amended by Article 3 of the Amending Royal Warrant of 1923, in consideration of the fact that Miss Hurley was a person eligible for a separation allowance and is in need, and absolutely incapable of self-support?

Mr. PARKINSON: A claim under Article 22 (i) can only be admitted if it is established that the claimant was dependent upon the soldier before the War or before his enlistment if later; that separation allowance was paid by and on behalf of the deceased soldier or that the claimant was eligible for such allowance; and that incapacity for self-support and pecuniary need existed at the time of the death of the soldier. As these conditions are not shown to have been fulfilled at the time of the soldier's death it is regretted that Miss Hurley is not eligible for an award of pension.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

DEMERSAL FISHING GROUNDS.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the Dutch and German Governments for the purpose of carrying out a joint policy of resting or preserving or restocking the nearer demersal fishery grounds, which have become less productive between the latitude 60 degrees north and 50 degrees north, and between the longitude 20 degrees west and 10 degrees east?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): The subject of the economical exploitation of the fisheries is being constantly studied by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, of which not only the two Governments named, but the Governments of all the countries fishing within the area specified are members. The possibility of limiting fishing operations in certain areas of the sea has been considered on the suggestion of the Council but an the opinion of His Majesty's Government the practical difficulties, including the cost, of the enforcement of such a limitation, rule out the possibility of its adoption. The Council are, however, examining the possibility of avoiding the wasteful destruction of small fish by means of modifications of the
fishing gears at present in use, which, if they could be shown to be satisfactory, might be generally adopted.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no modifications are made in fishing gear which might add enormous burdens to the trawling industry; and further, will he consider in more detail setting aside certain grounds as, for instance, the Firth of Forth for preservation?

Mr. BUXTON: That arrangement will certainly be borne in mind.

HANDLING AND STOWAGE.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is framing suitable regulations, to be enforced by law, to ensure more hygienic methods at sea for handling and packing trawled fish so as to retard what is technically known as autolysis and to reduce contamination by bacterial infection?

Mr. N. BUXTON: Although the Report on the Handling and Stowage of White Fish at Sea was only published by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research very recently, steps are already being taken by some owners to equip their vessels with the apparatus necessary for carrying out its recommendations. It is not yet clear to what extent the recommendations can be adopted in commercial practice, but I am confident that legislation will not be required to induce trawler owners and fishermen to take advantage, to the limit of practicability, of the information furnished by the Report.

Mr. SAMUEL: What about framing regulations to discourage or prevent the landing of stale fish?

Mr. BUXTON: A question should be put down on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

IMPORTED BUTTER (MARKING).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that large quantities of foreign butter are passed off in the English markets as British butter: and whether he will take steps to see that all butter is labelled with its country of origin?

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps, if any, he proposes to take to prevent proprietary brands of blended butter, containing a high percentage of foreign butter, from being sold under names calculated to make a purchaser suppose that the butter is of entirely English origin?

Major CARVER: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the selling of blended butter in various proprietary brands, embodying the names of counties or districts which are known to be important agricultural or dairy areas in England; and whether he will take action to ensure that all butter sold to the public shall be so marked that the buyer will not be misled in regard to the origin of the product, and thereby be induced to pay a price substantially in excess of its value?

Mr. N. BUXTON: Representations have been received from time to time that the wording on wrappers containing blended butters is sometimes misleading, in that it may lead purchasers to believe that the contents are British. No case has, however, yet come to my notice in which it would be possible to take a case successfully under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, for the application of a false trade description as to the country of origin. I would remind the hon. Members that it is open to any substantial interest to apply for an Order in Council under Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, to secure the marking of all imported butter with an indication of origin. The initiative cannot be taken by the Ministry.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some 80,000 tons of this foreign butter comes into this country, is blended in small packets, is sold with a local label, and is really an impudent fraud on people, because they believe that it is British butter, whereas it is mostly foreign butter?

Mr. BUXTON: The question of applying a national mark to butter is being considered, and I hope that it will prove to be effective.

Mr. HARDIE: Is this butter bought by foreign people residing in Britain, or by British people?

Mr. LEWIS: If the right hon. Gentleman has not powers to deal with this matter, does he not think that it is of sufficient importance to justify him asking Parliament for further powers?

Mr. BUXTON: No, I think that the right remedy is by means of a national mark.

POULTRY FARMING (FOXES).

Mr. EDE: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the dissatisfaction with the losses to poultry farmers caused by foxes, he is prepared to support active steps for the destruction of foxes; and, if so, what are the steps he will so support?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I do not think that Governmental action would be appropriate in regard to the destruction of foxes. Farmers throughout the country are well aware that they can legally kill foxes if they see fit, and in many districts they act accordingly when their interests demand it.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the Minister of Agriculture ever thought of engaging well-known poachers who are unemployed; they could clean up the foxes right away?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman a report in his office on the investigations made into damage done by foxes and fox-hunting?

Mr. BUXTON: No, no special report.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an investigation made?

Mr. BUXTON: No; I have only received reports from the National Poultry-Council.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is it not a fact that a great deal of damage is done to poultry by dogs, just as much as by foxes?

CO-OPERATION.

Viscount ELMLEY: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture of he will introduce legislation to encourage agricultural co-operation?

Mr. N. BUXTON: With a view to encouraging the co-operative movement in agriculture, I have already taken action in the direction of easing the terms governing loans to marketing societies,
and in setting on foot a series of investigations into the special problems of business organisation as affecting the selling side of the industry.

CORN AND POTATOES (PRICES).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the comparative price of British wheat, barley, oats, and potatoes at the present time and at the same period last year?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The average price of British wheat last month was 9s. 6d. per cwt. as compared with the same figure for January, 1929. The figures for barley were, in January, 1930, 8s. 7d. per cwt., in January, 1929, 10s. 1d. per cwt., and for oats 6s. l1d. per cwt. as compared with 9s. 2d. per cwt. The average prices per ton at certain wholesale markets in England and Wales of Arran Chief and King Edward potatoes were £3 13s. 6d. in January, 1930, and £5 in January, 1929.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that potatoes are now selling at an average of about £1, and given to pigs?

—
1929.
1928.
1927.
1926
1925.



Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.


Wheat
77,661
86,644
106,854
100,031
102,744


Barley
196,927
204,576
182,617
192,036
199,107


Oats
76,143
70,205
63,640
66,354
64,730


Mixed Corn
2,194
1,888
1,360
1,717
1,649


Rye
4,214
3,891
4,321
7,824
8,142


Total Corn Crops
357,139
367,204
358,792
367,962
376,372


Arable land
730,992
741,118
746,397
751,706
758,315


Total Permanent Grass
274,209
264,934
262,520
256,097
252,781


Total cultivated area
1,005,201
1,006,052
1,008,917
1,007,803
1,011,096


Total agricultural land
1,073,944
1,073,794
1,076,121
1,070,896
1,074,049

LAND DRAINAGE, NORTH YORKSHIRE.

Mr. TURTON: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the need for better land drainage in the 4,000 acres of land leased by the Crown Lands Commissioners between the rivers Ure and Swale, in the North Riding of Yorkshire; whether ho will inquire into the drainage conditions of this area; and whether he will make

Mr. BUXTON: I have given the official prices for January.

ARABLE ACREAGE, NORFOLK.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the acreage of arable or corn-growing land which has gone down to grass or out of cultivation in the county of Norfolk during the last four years?

Mr. N. BUXTON: As the reply consists of a number of figures, I propose, with the permission of my hon. Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL RFPORT.

Mr. TAYLOR: Having regard to the gravity of the crisis in arable agriculture in this country, will my right hon. Friend press the need for early legislation?

Mr. BUXTON: That should be the subject of a separate question.

Earl WINTERTON: In issuing the figures, will the right hon. Gentleman state how much of the decrease is due to the great decrease in autumn ploughing that took place last October and November in consequence of the absence of policy of the present Government?

Following is the reply:

provision so as to ensure that this agricultural land is less liable to be flooded?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I am aware that serious flooding has taken place in this district on many occasions, and in the last three years the Commissioners of Crown Lands have spent £1,700 on repairing and strengthening the river banks and improving the drainage of the land. I am inquiring into the possibility of making
better provision for the prevention of floods, and will communicate the result of my inquiry to the hon. Member.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has ample money at his disposal for such expenditure?

Mr. BUXTON: No application has been made for a grant.

POTATO INDUSTRY.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any further information to give to the House as to the progress of negotiations with the Canadian Government with reference to the embargo on the importation of British potatoes into Canada?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I am afraid I am not in a position to make any further statement on this subject.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make a statement, as this is a very urgent matter at the present moment in many parts of the country?

Mr. BUXTON: The Canadian Government has its own reasons for its decision in this matter, and we cannot deny it the right to take action to safeguard itself against disease.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman say he is not yet in a position to make any further statement? Can he tell us when he will be able to give an answer which has any bearing on the previous question?

Mr. BUXTON: I said that I am not in a position to add anything to previous answers.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In view of the unsatisfactory terms of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on an early occasion.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards this question is of the same derisive character—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord will have an opportunity to discuss this matter at an early date.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the placing of an embargo on all imported early potatoes from foreign countries which can be passed through an inch-and-a-half riddle would not raise the cost to the consumer, he will take action in this direction?

Mr. BUXTON: I am advised that the embargo proposed by the hon. and gallant Member would be in conflict with the provisions of the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, as well as with a number of commercial treaties with individual countries, and I am therefore not prepared to take the action suggested.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister to have a White Paper, presented to this House giving the clauses of the Treaty which prevent us from dealing with, this particular problem? May I have an answer?

Mr. BUXTON: The Prime Minister has heard the suggestion and will give the matter his attention.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The question I put was whether the right hon. Gentleman, being responsible for agriculture, would make representations to the Prime Minister.

IMPORTED PRODUCE (GOVERNMENT POLICY).

Mr. FRANK OWEN: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the expressed intention of arable farmers to curtain the employment of labour on their land, he will now make a statement of the policy of the Government towards the import of foreign produce?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I am not aware that arable farmers generally have expressed the intention to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the latter part of the question, I have nothing to add to statements I have already made on the subject.

Mr. OWEN: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory answer, I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. EDE: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the annual sum now
payable by the State to the county councils in respect of the county deficits on the working of the post-War small holdings; and what relation this bears to the annual charge for the purchase money of the land owned by the local authorities for this purpose?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The valuation made as at the 31st March, 1926, includes pre-War as well as post-War small holdings and the figures cannot be separated. For the current year, the small holdings charges payable by councils amount, in round figures, to £1,250,000, and the Ministry's contribution thereto is £848,000, or 68 per cent.

INJURIOUS WEEDS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. EDE: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many prosecutions were authorised in 1927, 1928 and 1929 in respect of injurious weeds?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The numbers of cases in which authority to institute prosecutions for failure to destroy injurious weeds was given by the Ministry under the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, in 1927, 1928 and 1929, were 10, 16 and 13, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Earl WINTERTON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the conditions governing the relationship between the Economic Advisory Council and His Majesty's Government in Great Britain will permit of advice being requested by the latter or tendered by the former on fiscal matters and policy?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Noble Lord has overlooked in reading the White Paper (Cmd. 3478) the precise statement that the Council may advise on fiscal policy both at home and abroad.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister the terms of the engagements and the emoluments of the members of the staff of the Economic Advisory Council?

The PRIME MINISTER: Apart from two established civil servants already on the staff of the Cabinet Secretariat, three appointments have been made to the staff of the Economic Advisory Council on inclusive salaries of £1,500,
£750 and £650 per annum respectively. Of these three appointments, one is on an established basis, and two are on an unestablished basis terminable on a month's notice.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to stating the names of these three gentlemen?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CHAIRMAN).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to announce the name of the successor to Lord Clarendon as Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. HARRIS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when Lord Clarendon is to vacate the post of Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation; whether his successor has been decided on; and, if so, what is his name?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): I have been asked to reply. I am not yet able to say when Lord Clarendon's successor as Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation will take up office. A successor has not yet been appointed.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman say what probable time will elapse before the appointment is made?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I cannot say that at the present moment.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any change is contemplated in the organisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. MILLS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister the Government's definite intention regarding the week's holiday granted last year for the first time to all employés
in Government establishments; whether he will fix a given date as is done by-the cotton trade: and whether the Easter holidays, King's birthday and King George III's beanfeast holiday will continue where already in practice?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The Government have decided that, subject to the exigencies of the public service, employés in Government industrial establishments, who have completed a full year's service, shall be given each year six days' leave with pay, plus five public holidays. The detailed arrangements required to give effect to this decision have been left to Departments. I think the hon. Member will agree that circumstances vary so widely in different Departments and establishments that it would not be possible to make any uniform arrangement applicable to all.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMENT BY OUTPUT.

Commander BELLAIRS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that proposals for payment by output find support in all parties, he will have the various proposals in their application to different industries investigated as soon as possible under the auspices of the new Economic Advisory Council?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will bear in mind the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member, but I should point out that the applicability of such a system to a particular industry must be one for consideration by the employers' and workers' organisations in that industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIGHTING FORCES.

MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATIVES.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great reduction in the numbers of the armed forces of the Crown, he will correct the present situation whereby the Ministerial representatives of the three Services are the same as those existing when the forces during the War were many times larger than at present?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on the 20th November last in reply to a
question by the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

MEAT SUPPLIES.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Members of Parliament for Birmingham have been requested by an officer of his Department to support by a communication, to be published in the local Press, the effort of the Ministry to focus the attention of the people move effectively on the superiority of home-killed beef, when the grading of that beef is supervised by the Government, by holding a national-mark week for beef in Birmingham; and whether, as support of the national-mark scheme is held by the Government to be of national interest, it is proposed to restore the decision of the late Government respecting the supply of home-killed beef to the Forces?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part of the question. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave on Monday last to the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown).

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that this good cause would be better advanced by the Government setting an example than by us asking other people to preach what the Government themselves refuse to practice?

Mr. BUXTON: The Government were influenced by the consideration of cost, which I understand was the reason for the consistent refusal of the late Government to do this during their four years of office.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the cost is too much for the Government, how do they expect us to press the same course successfully on private individuals?

Mr. GUINNESS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman originally give as his reason for going back on the decision of the previous Government that the increased demand was likely to put up prices; that it was not really a matter of cost to the Government but of prices to ordinary consumers?

Mr. BUXTON: The main reason was the cost which the right hon. Gentleman said was paramount during his term of office.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is it not a fact that at the recent meeting of the Council of Agriculture Mr. Edwards and his Socialist supporters asked the right hon. Gentleman to appeal to the Government to take on the policy of the late Government, and will he not pay some attention to them?

Mr. GUINNESS: In connection with the matter of price, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is not more to the advantage of this country that the price of home-produced meat should be put up rather than that we should put up the price of Oversea meat, to which this demand is necessarily transferred by a decrease in the consumption of home-produced meat?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON PARKS (ALTERATIONS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 69.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any and, if so, how many trees have been cut down in Regent's and Hyde Parks and Kensington Gardens in connection with his schemes of playgrounds, etc.?

Sir HILTON YOUNG: 70.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how many trees have been and will be destroyed in the course of the present alterations in Regent's Park?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I will answer these questions together. No tree has been cut down in Hyde Park or Kensington Gardens in connection with these schemes. One tree was cut down on the site of the boating pond in Regent's Park, but this would have had to come down in any case very soon. I think I ought to add that my Department is compelled to remove from time to time from the parks a considerable number of decayed and dangerous trees. The removal of such trees recently seems to have given rise to some misapprehension as to the object of the work. Several fresh trees are planted for every one which has to be removed.

Mr. O. LEWIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it happens that
these trees have had to be removed just where the cinder track is to be put?

Mr. LANSBURY: I think the hon. Member is under a very grave misapprehension. None have been removed in connection with the cinder track.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the water garden originally laid out by Sir Joseph Paxton is destined to be removed, like the solitary tree in Regent's Park, and will he give the matter his attention?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not aware of anything of the kind.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: How many trees has the right hon. Gentleman got his eye on?

Mr. LANSBURY: Seeing I have had my eye on no trees, I do not know what the hon. Member means.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 72.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he has received any representations from the National Playing Fields Association in favour of organised games on the old exhibition grounds in Hyde Park in place of the unorganised games hitherto permitted?

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, Sir, both the London Playing Fields Association and the Association named, urged on me the desirability of arranging for this ground to be so used, and it was a prominent member of the Association who provided the funds for carrying out the necessary works of preparation.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not much better to have two or three hundred small children playing where now there is space only for six XI's or organised players to play?

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be unaware of the fact that for many years past three Army teams have used that ground regularly. If the hon. and gallant Member is acquainted with the place, he will know that we are not preventing any children from playing, or anyone else from getting recreation.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how little children can play there while a football match is in progress?

Mr. LANSBURY: There is plenty of other room for the little children.

Sir W. DAVISON: 76.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has in mind the erection of any buildings or pavilions either in Hyde Park or Kensington Gardens, or any alterations in their lay-out; and whether ho can assure the House that no such buildings or alterations will be put in hand without particulars being first submitted to the House of Commons?

Mr. O. LEWIS: 77.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the anxiety as to the effect of the alterations he is making or is about to make in the London parks, he will have prepared and exhibited in some position convenient for inspection by Members of this House a sketch plan of each of the parks affected, so as to show the position and approximate area of each alteration; and to give Members an opportunity of judging how far the general amenities of the parks will be affected?

Mr. BROAD: 78.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has satisfied himself that the designs of any structures to be erected in the Royal parks to provide shelter for children or bathers will be such as not to detract from the natural beauties of the parks?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have, in reply to various questions, informed the House of most of the schemes which I have approved, not only in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, to which the question asked by the hon. Member for South Kensington specially refers, but also in the other Royal parks. I am satisfied that the structures which are to be erected will not detract from the beauty of the parks, and in order that hon. Members may judge for themselves I have arranged for the designs of three of them to be exhibited in the Tea Room. I will arrange for the plans asked for by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) to be prepared and exhibited.

Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to carry out any further buildings without the express authority of this House?

Mr. LANSBURY: I propose to do exactly what every other Commissioner of Works has done.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that; no other First Commissioner has ever erected a single building in any of the parks without the express authority of this House?

Mr. LANSBURY: I think the Noble Lord is quite misinformed. Each summer time one of the most ugly hoardings possible to be erected has been erected on the pathway of the Serpentine, and I expect the Noble Lord has seen it without taking the trouble to call in question the putting up of one of the most unsightly, ugly buildings that could possibly be erected.

Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands my question. I was referring to permanent buildings of bricks and mortar, and, if the First Commissioner will look at the precedents, I think he will find that I am perfectly correct in stating that no such buildings have been erected without the express authority of this House.

Mr. LANSBURY: I cannot trust my own memory on this point, and I am not going to take the Noble Lord's memory.

Sir W. DAVISON: Am I to understand that the First Commissioner has not in contemplation the erection of any permanent buildings in either Kensington Gardens or Hyde Park other than the bathing pavilion which is in the enclosure to which he has just referred; and is there no intention of erecting a carillon, or anything of that kind?

Mr. LANSBURY: I think the hon. Gentleman has rather misunderstood my answer to a previous question. There is to be a small pavilion erected at the end of the sports ground for people who play football to change their clothes. That and the other building I have mentioned are the only two buildings.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the War period and during the General Strike a series of ugly buildings were erected in the parks without this House being consulted?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. HARDIE: 73.
asked the First Com- missioner of Works whether any part
of the buildings known as the Westminster Palace is let for any private use; and, if so, at what rent?

Mr. LANSBURY: Various portions of Westminster Palace are allocated to private persons who render services to Members of both Houses. No rents are charged.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the First Commissioner aware of the great necessity there is for more space in connection with the work of the House of Commons, and is he considering the removal of some of these people who are getting accommodation without payment in order to give greater facilities for Members of the House?

Mr. LANSBURY: The officers of the Department are continually searching round to find accommodation for hon. Members, and I am very hopeful indeed that some new accommodation will be provided very shortly to enable Members to get their typing work done under better conditions than at present.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: What is the particular accommodation of which we are short?

Mr. LANSBURY: Hon. Members who cannot afford to employ secretaries to do their typing would be very glad to be able to have a room on this floor where they can carry out their typing, and it is that which we are trying to arrange.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman also referring to the gymnasium which he purposed providing?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am afraid the gymnasium will have to be in the park.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

COLONIAL AND DOMINIONS OFFICE.

Mr. REMER: 74.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of rooms at the Colonial and Dominions Office and the number of clerical staffs, above and excluding typists, housed in those same rooms?

Mr. LANSBURY: The total number of rooms, excluding typists', messengers', conference, waiting and store rooms, occupied by the Colonial and Dominions
office is 102. The number of clerical and other staffs, above and excluding typists housed in these rooms is 266.

OFFICE OF WORKS.

Mr. REMER: 75.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of rooms occupied at Storey's Gate by the Department of the Office of Works; and the number of clerical staffs, above and excluding typists, housed in those same rooms?

Mr. LANSBURY: The total number of rooms, excluding typists', messengers', conference, waiting and store rooms, occupied by the Office of Works at Storey's Gate is 193. The number of clerical and other staffs, above and excluding typists, housed in these rooms is 1,246.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (DEATH OF MR. C. M. BARLOW).

Mr. HANNON (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House on the circumstances under which Mr. Christopher Matthew Barlow, an Administrative Officer of the Nigerian Political Service, has recently been assassinated in Northern Nigeria?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): I have been asked to answer this question. All the information which has so far been received is to the effect that Mr. Barlow died on the 9th February as a result of injuries received in an attack by pagan tribesmen in the Shendam Division of the Northern Provinces, and that his death was due to a fracture of the skull following a blow by a, stone. Six police constables were also injured at the same time. Shendam is in a remote part of the Protectorate, and some time must elapse before full information can be sent by mail, but in any case there can be no connection between this occurrence and the disturbances in the Southern Provinces in the month of December.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the difficult and embarrassing duties of these political officers, the Colonial Office takes any special precautions to safeguard
their lives when they are discharging their services in remote parts of His Majesty's Dominions?

Mr. LUNN: I have no doubt that the Colonial Office takes every care possible in the case of officers carrying out such important duties as this gentleman did.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-night under the Motion which stands in his name, and whether you, Mr. Speaker, would be good enough to divide the Motion which stands in the name of the Prime Minister, if he moves it, so that we may treat separately the Government Business and the Private Business put down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the business, the first part of the Motion provides for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule for Government Business and for the two Private Bills set down for consideration at Half-past Seven by order of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Motion also provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 8, as regards the second of these two Bills, namely, the London Electric, Metropolitan District, Central London, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill, may be considered, even if it be not under consideration at Half-past Nine. As regards Government Business, we hope to get the programme which I announced last Thursday, namely, the Second Reading of the Mental Treatment Bill [Lords], with the Money Resolution, the Second Reading of the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Bill, and further stages of the Poor Law Bill [Lords].

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that the Prime Minister does not propose to take those Measures after eleven o'clock if the Private Business is not finished by that hour?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes; I am afraid we must. The inclusion of Private Business has rather upset this week's programme. I am very sorry, but I hope it will not be necessary to sit very late.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the constant use of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, would the Prime Minister consider referring to the Committee which has been appointed the question whether we should not go back to twelve o'clock as the hour of adjournment, instead of eleven o'clock?

The PRIME MINISTER: This business is very pressing, and there is a great amount of arrears. The business that we want specially to take is the Second Reading of the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Bill, and the administrative necessity for that Bill compels us to ask the House to take it to-night.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I put it to the Prime Minister that it is because he is taking other business which is not urgent, to the exclusion of business which is urgent, that at the last moment he is obliged to ask the House to sit after eleven o'clock to do that urgent business.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Bill is a very difficult and technical Measure, and that hon. Members only received it on Thursday? It consists of an enlargement of some 11 Clauses of a Bill which was dropped as long ago as 1925. How can that possibly be urgent?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the Bill is made necessary on account of revaluation arising out of legislation passed in the last Parliament, and that, unless it is carried by a certain date—I cannot charge my memory with the exact date, but we are very close upon it—tremendous inconvenience of an administrative and legal character will arise.

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of feeling about the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Bill, as regards the treatment given to railway docks as compared with independent docks, and that that question may require a good deal of discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I understand it, that is not a new point, and it is very largely a Committee point. Indeed, I am informed that one or two of these broader points which are susceptible of discussion are technical points which would be much better discussed
in Committee upstairs than on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. That is the advice that I have received from those in charge of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: In accordance with the suggestion which has been made, I will divide the Motion into two.

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 105.

Division No. 166.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Pailng, Wilfrid


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palmer, E. T.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Haycock, A. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Hayes, John Henry
Perry, S. F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, W. w. (Middx., Enfield)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Ammon, Charles George
Herriotts, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Arnott, John
Hoffman, P. C.
Pole, Major D. G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hopkin, Daniel
Potts, John S.


Ayles, Walter
Horrabin, J. F.
Price, M. P.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Pybus, Percy John


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Isaacs, George
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barnes, Alfred John
Johnston, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bellamy, Albert
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Raynes, W. R.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benson, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Romeril, H. G.


Bowen, J. W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kennedy, Thomas
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kinley, J.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brooke, W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lang, Gordon
Sandham, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sawyer, G. F.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lathan, G.
Scurr, John


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Caine, Derwent Hall.
Lawrence, Susan
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawson, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Chater, Daniel
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shinwell, E.


Church, Major A. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cluse, W. S.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sitch, Charles H.


Compton, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Cove, William G.
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dallas, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Devlin, Joseph
McElwee, A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dickson, T.
McEntee, V. L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dukes, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sorensen, R.


Duncan, Charles
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stephen, Campbell


Ede, James Chuter
McShane, John James
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Edmunds, J. E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Strauss, G. R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
March, S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Egan, W. H.
Markham, S. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Elmley, Viscount
Marley, J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marshall, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Matters, L. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Gibbins, Joseph
Melville, Sir James
Vaughan, D. J.


Gill, T. H.
Messer, Fred
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Millar, J. D.
Wallace, H. W.


Glassey, A. E.
Mills, J. E.
Wellhead, Richard C.


Gossling, A. G.
Montague, Frederick
Watkins, F. C.


Gould, F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wellock, Wilfred


Granville, E.
Morley, Ralph
West, F. R.


Gray, Milner
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Westwood, Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mort, D. L.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wise, E. F.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Naylor, T. E.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Noel Baker, P. J.



Hardie, George D.
Oldfield. J. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Allen, w. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Remer. John R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Atkinson, C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beaumont, M. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Berry, Sir George
Hartington, Marquess of
Skelton, A. N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith, R. W. (Aberdn & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smithers, Waldron


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, A. A (Windsor)


Bracken, B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Burton, Colonel H. W.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Butler, R. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Locker- Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Colville. Major D. J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Womersley, W. J.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Eden, Captain Anthony
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Ferguson, Sir John
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Frece, Sir Walter de
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir Frederick Thomson.

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of "Ways and Means, be exempted from the Provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, any such Private Business may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Orders of the Day — MENTAL TREATMENT BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In rising to move this Motion, I invite the co-operation of all sections of the House in a Measure which does not involve narrow party political considerations, but which, nevertheless, in its intrinsic importance, is one which is entitled to the careful attention of all Members of this House. I do not think there can be any worse human tragedy than that of the man or woman wandering in the no-man's land between sanity and insanity, or the case of the person temporary deranged who, through lack of early care or adequate care, is plunged into permanent insanity, with all the phantasms that populate the world of people whose minds have lost their equilibrium. Anything that this House can do to deal with that problem, and anything that this House can do to popularise a new conception of mental disease, is work which it ought to do. It will be within the recollection of the House that five years ago I announced, in the Labour Government of 1924, that a Royal Commission on Lunacy was to be appointed, to be presided over by Mr. Hugh Macmillan, as he then was—a Commission of distinguished persons, including representatives of this House. Two years later the Commission issued its report.
The purpose of this Bill is to carry into law the less controversial proposals in that report, and to deal particularly with urgently needed reform. The reception which the Bill had in another place, and the discussions which took place there, lead me to believe that essentially the Bill can be treated on a non-party basis. During its passage through the other House certain Amendments were made, and during its passage through the Commons, the Government will be willing to consider sympathetically any Amendments which may be forthcoming which will improve the Bill,
but which are not inconsistent with the main principles of the Bill. The main emphasis of the Report of the Royal-Commission is upon the need for a new conception of mental disorder and its treatment. There is emphasised the view that there should be early treatment, and that mental disease should be viewed much in the same way as we now view physical disease. I will, if I may, quote one or two passages from the Report of the Royal Commission which, I think, express admirably the modern attitude towards the treatment of mental diseases:
The keynote of the past has been detention. The keynote of the future should be prevention and treatment.
Again,
Contrary to the accepted canons of preventive medicine, the mental patient is not admissible to most of the institutions provided for his treatment until his disease has progressed so far that he has become a certifiable lunatic. Then, and then only, is he eligible for treatment.
But they said—and here, I think, the overwhelming feeling of the House will be with the Commission—
Certification should be the last resort in treatment, not the pre-requisite of treatment.
Another quotation—and I think it is important that the House should realise exactly what we are trying to do in this way—
With the advance of medical science and the growth of more enlightened views, insanity is coming to be regarded from an entirely different standpoint. It is being perceived that insanity is, after all, only a disease like other diseases, though with distinctive symptoms of its own, and that a mind diseased can be ministered to no less effectively than a body diseased.
It is on that basis that the Bill has been founded. If we accept that view of mental disease, not as a visitation of Providence, not as something indecent, about which we ought not to talk in public, but as something in the same category as other forms of human ailment, then it becomes quite clear that the community ought to organise its resources to enable us to carry out preventive measures and early treatment. In the Bill provision is made for two categories of treatment: First, those who themselves recognise the instability of their condition, and who realise the desirability of taking early preventive measures; and, secondly, cases of people who themselves are no
longer able to realise their condition, but who, nevertheless, may be curable, and who ought to receive treatment different from that of the certified lunatic. The first Clauses of the Bill deal with those two categories of cases—the voluntary boarder who goes in of his own freewill fearing a mental breakdown, and what is called in the Bill the non-volitional patient, who enters for temporary treatment.
With regard to the voluntary boarder, at present in England and Wales voluntary boarders can be received only in certain institutions: in licensed houses and registered hospitals under the Lunacy Acts, and only in two public institutions where, as a result of special legislation, it is possible for voluntary boarders to be accommodated. They are the Maudsley Hospital under the London County Council and the City of London Mental Hospital at Dartford. It follows, I think, from that, that with very few exceptions treatment of the voluntary boarder is available only for people who are fortunate enough to be able to pay the fees for entry into these places. That, obviously, cannot in these days be defended. There are few free beds in the licensed houses and registered hospitals. There are 14 only of them and only 4,700 beds. The big bulk of the public hospitals are not entitled to take in voluntary boarders, and the result, therefore, is that the vast number of people for whom treatment as voluntary patients would be desirable are in fact debarred from that treatment. Of the 115,000 beds in our mental institutions, there are none that are available for persons who want to go in in the first stages. They are there only for those people who have gone in with the badge of the certified lunatic in their possession.
The object of the first four Clauses is to make more extended provision for voluntary boarders and to provide that such boarders may be received into the other types of public institution whose doors to-day are closed against them. In order that we may get a coherent and logical code with regard to voluntary patients, the opportunity has been taken in the early Clauses to repeal certain of the existing provisions and to re-enact them and bring them together in the first four Clauses as a definite and complete
code for voluntary boarders. It is, of course, clear that in cases of this kind, I think in most instances where the individual goes in of his own free will, there must be some measure of protection. The real distinction between physical and mental disease is that, in the case of mental disease the will of the individual does not consciously operate, and it is necessary, therefore, to have some measure of protection in the interests of people who enter these institutions. While provision is made to permit a person of less than adult years to become a voluntary boarder in an institution on the application of a parent or guardian, safeguards have been introduced requiring the support of definite medical evidence as to the desirability of the young person undergoing treatment, and a provision for the intervention of the central authority if the parent or guardian does not appear to be carrying out his duties after the minor has been placed in the care of the institution.
The next problem of the voluntary boarder is as to his release. It is clear that, if a person voluntarily enters an institution for treatment, he cannot be permitted to leave just exactly when he likes and, as the law stands now, notice of 24 hours is required. In the Bill, we are proposing that voluntary boarders should be entitled to release on giving 72 hours' notice. That is not because of anyone's desire to retain people against their will, but in order that there shall be sufficient time to communicate with friends or relatives and to make effective arrangements for their care when they are released, because it is obvious that in certain cases, unless proper steps are taken for the care of a patient who is discharged, some serious harm may come to him. I think it will be generally agreed, so far anyhow, that we are on right lines in opening more doors and in making more extensive provision for voluntary treatment. That provision is made in the first four clauses of the Bill.
In Clause 5, where there has been a certain amount of doubt expressed, we are dealing with the person who has gone a little too far to appreciate that he is a victim of incipient mental disorder and who, whilst not being the resistant type of case which calls for certification, ought to receive some method of treat-
ment. The cases we have particularly in mind are the cases of the man whose mind has been temporarily broken by overwork, the cases of the woman in childbed who suffers from puerperal mania, and cases where with proper treatment fairly early recovery might be expected. Think of the woman after confinement whose mind becomes temporarily unhinged and who is branded with the stigma not only of the Poor Law but of certification ! The stigma of certification is a real thing which has kept from proper institutional treatment many people who might well have benefited. I am not sure that in many working-class homes the stigma of judicial certification does not stab deeper even than the stigma of the Poor Law and it is, therefore, essential, if we are to do common justice to people who in time will be as normal as the rest of their fellows, that we should do something to get adequate treatment for them without putting upon them this brand of certification.
It raises very large and difficult questions. We know that a substantial proportion of the people who enter institutions duly certified recover and, in the report of the Royal Commission, a number of statistics are quoted of various mental hospitals showing that quite a substantial proportion of people who enter our mental institutions are released in a relatively short space of time. One of the best instances, perhaps—because the figures cover four years—is that of the Claybury Mental Hospital, where it is shown that out of 792 recoveries of sanity, 11 patients recovered between the first or second month, 40 between the second and third, 71 between the third and fourth, 76 between the fourth and fifth, and 83 between the fifth and sixth month. In other words, over a quarter of those recoveries took place within six months, and we are proposing, in the first instance, that, subject to safeguards, these people should be subject to a period of treatment not exceeding six months. In the cases I have quoted, over a quarter of all the people who recovered in that asylum would, under Clause 5, never have had to undergo judicial certification. It is clear that, if we had more and early treatment of this kind, more cases would recover. Even at the end of six months I do not think
we are justified in assuming that the patient who still remains needs certification, and, therefore, provision is made for the continuance of the treatment for a period not exceeding a further six months.
Here I feel that I must explain that the Government have departed from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is done after very careful and mature consideration. The Royal Commission, while anxious to differentiate cases which should be certified from those which need not be certified in the first instance, cast about for a procedure which would be different from that of certification, and they devised the plan of a Provisional Treatment Order, and they proposed, with reluctance—I use their own words—that the Order should be signed by a magistrate, though it is clear from the whole tenour of their report that they would be glad to get away from judicial interference. When we came, however, to work out what the Provisional Treatment Order would, in fact, be, it was clear that to the ordinary mind it could not have been distinguished from ordinary certification. I feel very strongly that, if the principle of Clause 5 as it stands now is destroyed, the heart will have gone out of the Bill. One wants, therefore, to devise a machinery which is distinguishable from certification. That is the whole point of the Clause, to get treatment for the non-volitional case without having to resort to the interference of the magistrate and all that that means.
But, of course, there must be safeguards, and we have inserted a number of safeguards which, I think, will be an adequate protection for the non-volitional patient. First, there must be two medical recommendations to support the application made on behalf of a non-volitional patient, one signed by a medical practitioner specially approved by the State, and the other, if practicable, by the usual medical attendant of the patient. There is a double safeguard without the intervention of a Justice of the Peace. Such a patient may be received into an institution provided by a local authority or into a registered hospital; that is to say, a charitably-provided hospital registered under the Lunacy Acts. He can only be received into any other institution, hospital, or
nursing home if that place has previously been approved by the Board of Control as being suitable for the reception of these cases. That is a further safeguard, because it means, in effect, that these cases can only go to institutions which are under the public eye and under a measure of public control. Moreover, on the reception of a patient, notice, with the full details, with a copy of the application, with the medical recommendation and so on, must within one clear day be sent for scrutiny to the Board of Control.
Further, arrangements are made in Clause 5 of the Bill for fairly frequent visitation, and, in addition, there will be the periodical visitation of the central authority itself. Arrangements for discharge will be as under the Lunacy Acts, and, in addition, it is laid down that a patient must be discharged in any event within 28 days of recovering volition. It is difficult to say now what time that should be, because cases may relapse and become worse, but it is clear that we should have a period of time in the Bill at the end of which the person who has recovered shall be automatically released. There are other safeguards, but what we have tried very sincerely to do is to protect the individual and at the same time not to introduce the process which is commonly associated with entry into a mental institution.
I believe that this Clause will mark a great advance in the treatment of incipient mental disorders, but I am equally sure that the intervention of the magistrate in these cases would destroy the whole value of it. We are faced with a complete dilemma. Parliament can agree to Clause 5 without magisterial intervention and to that extent permit the treatment of incipient mental disorder to be approximated to the treatment of physical disease, or they may leave the present legal machinery as it stands now and condemn these people to certification. If you do the latter, you will not get the early treatment which we all desire to bring about, and the great purpose of this Clause, and indeed one of the main purposes of the Bill, will have been defeated.
Medical opinion certainly, and I think a large volume of enlightened public opinion are prepared to support this
Measure and to get rid of what has been caled the stigma of judicial interference I may claim that we have in this matter the vast majority of the medical profession behind us. Certainly, Lord Dawson in another place spoke warmly in support of the Bill. The lawyers, to whom we are entitled to look for the protection of the individual, as; profession, have always stood by the liberty of the subject, and it is significant that when in another place an effort was made to provide for the intervention of the magistrate, two of the Law Lords opposed that view and supported the Bill. I think we may say that in the other House this Clause received support from all three political parties. It is unite clear that, if we are going to look forward to expanding the provisions for the treatment either of voluntary patients or of non-volitional patients, we must develop and re-fashion our local and central machinery.
In Clause 6 and the following Clauses we deal with the provisions as regards local authorities. Clause 6 enlarges the powers and duties of local authorities and enables them to do more in the way of provision of facilities for treatment. It imposes an obligation upon them to provide suitable accommodation for temporary patients under Clause 5 as was recommended by the Royal Commission. They are given powers which, I believe, will prove to be of the utmost value, powers to provide out-patient clinics—for I see no reason why every temporarily unbalanced person should be put into an institution—powers to undertake aftercare—and. if after-care were effective, many of the recurrent cases would not go back-and powers to undertake research. These powers are subject to the approval of the Board of Control and are so drawn on the specific recommendation of the Royal Commission.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of those additional obligations which are being put on the local authorities, is there any additional national finance being provided to relieve the local authorities?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not sure whether the hon. Member quite understands what is the position to-day. We are dealing with people who to-day are certified, and to-day it is the duty on the part of local authorities to undertake the treatment of those people. We are
asking now, not that they are to undertake entirely new duties, but to undertake the duties which have been performed hitherto under certification in a different way.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to say that, under present conditions, a grant is given by the State, and that I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can make it quite clear whether it is the intention to give a grant in future for these additional patients.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The grant which is given to-day in respect entirely, I think, of Poor Law patients is a small grant. That grant was largely destroyed, not by me but by the late Government. When the block grant was introduced last year, the new grant was a grant in respect of the public health services almost entirely—I will not mention the exceptions—and the mental institutions were definitely included as part of the public health services. Under the block grant, in future State money will be paid in respect of mental institutions just as much as it will be paid in respect of maternal and child welfare centres. Far be it from me to try and explain a Bill which I did not help to pass, but under the block grant, it was said—I find myself in a very difficult position in these matters—an amount of new money was put in over and above the existing grants paid in respect of individual services in order to permit of this development, one aspect of which we are trying to press forward to-day.

Mr. LEIF JONES: In Clause 6, the duty is laid upon every local authority to provide and maintain suitable accommodation for temporary patients. Will not that mean that every local authority will have to make provision for a new class of patient, and will not that involve a very considerable expense to local authorities?

Mr. STEPHEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, and as I first interrupted him, I should like to say that I was quite aware that there was already an obligation on the local authority, but, if this Measure is going to be successful and there is going to be this development of treatment without certification, it is surely going to involve an additional expense. My point is that, if the Bill is
successful in its purpose, there will be additional expense, and is there not going to be some additional provision made by the National Exchequer in order to relieve the local authorities to some extent?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I deprecate this method of interruption. I have already tried to explain from actual statistics of institutions the position with regard to people who were certified and recovered. We ask in this Bill that these people shall no longer be certified and that they shall be treated definitely as possibly curable cases. It is a duty on local authorities to deal with certified lunatics, a statutory duty from which they cannot escape. They cannot deal with them to-day until they certify, and we are asking for machinery which will enable them to deal with these persons without certification. If it should be that the local authorities feel that this is a service which demands further financial assistance, I am quite sure that their constituted organisations will come and press very hard long before the day on which they begin to spend the money. Objection has been taken to making this a new duty, but as I have already pointed out it is not so much a new duty as the application of an old duty in a different way. Even if it were not made a statutory duty, I ought to point out to the, House that, as these mental institutions and the work under these Acts are part of the public health work of the local authorities, if they do not carry out their duties they may, under the Local Government Act, suffer a diminution in their State assistance and that would, if it were applied—and I think that some of these things often ought to be applied—make a power practically into a duty.
Now that we have transferred the boards of guardians and now that there is to be a new development of health services, many local authorities will welcome this new change and this new avenue for the development of a branch of the public health service. If we modify the law as regards local authorities, it is clear that we ought to modify the law with regard to the central authority. The Board of Control has a long history, which goes back, I think, to the forties of the last century. It is now being subjected to criticism. It is no business of mine to deal with that point,
except in so far as this Bill is concerned. The whole intention of the reorganisation set forth in Clauses 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 is to re-establish the Board of Control on a new basis, with a closer contact with the local authorities and with a procedure and a method of administration assimilated to that which is followed now in the Ministry of Health. We are proposing to reduce the size of the Board and the number of Commissioners and to give power for the appointment of Assistant Commissioners and Inspectors, in order to get some effective central provision and administration and a more effective contact with the local authorities. We not merely reduce the number of Commissioners, but we give new authority to the chairman of the Commission, subject, as is laid down in Clause 12, to the directions of the Minister of Health.
The whole desire behind this proposed alteration in the Board of Control is to adapt that central machinery to the rapidly developing work within the sphere of the Board of Control, lunacy, mental deficiency and now the powers and activities under this Bill. It is assumed, indeed it has been stated, that the Board of Control is a star chamber, which is not within the jurisdiction of this House. Nothing could be more untrue. It is important for hon. Members to realise, because their attitude to the Bill will be largely governed by their view of this part of it, that while for administrative reasons it is desirable that there should be a board of some kind, that board is as much within the control of Parliament as the Ministry of Health, the Board of Trade, the Board of Education, or any other State Department. When questions are asked about the Board of Control, and they can be asked, they are answered by the Minister of Health; when their Estimates come before the House, those Estimates are defended by the Minister of Health; when their legislation is before the House, unfortunately, it is introduced by the Minister of Health. There could not be any more complete control than that which is now exercised. It is in character, in kind, and in scope the same sort of control as Parliament exercises over other Departments. Having said that, I must say a few words about Clauses 14 and 15.
Clause 14 has caused a little alarm in certain quarters. It is a Clause which transfers certain powers from the Minister to the Board of Control. Those powers are set out in the Second Schedule to the Bill. They are detailed powers affecting relatively small matters of administration, but they do quite naturally and inevitably lead to over lapping and duplication of administration. The Royal Commission, quite rightly, felt that the whole of the power should be exercised by one common body, and suggested that the detailed powers enumerated should be handed directly to the Board of Control. That has been done in Clause 14. Should any difficulty arise about the exercise of powers under Clause 14, my responsibility will not be really changed. There will be as much Parliamentary control as there is at the present time. Clause 15 has also created apprehension in the minds of a few people. There, again, it is desired to have power to make rules for restricted purposes, and it is a power that already exists under the Lunacy Acts. It is clear that there must be residing somewhere the power to make rules of a detailed administrative kind. In another place the Government accepted Amendments, because of fears that had been expressed, to bring such rules immediately under the notice of Parliament. By Clause 15 (2), as amended in another place, it is provided that:
any rules which modify or adapt any enactment … shall cease to have effect upon the expiration of a period of three months from the date on which they came into operation, unless at some time before the expiration of that period they have, been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament.
All the other rules made under the Act must be laid before Parliament as soon as they are made, and, if an Address is presented by either House within 21 days, the rule is to be annulled. That will give to Parliament a final say in the matter of the detailed administration of the rules, which, I think hon. Members will agree, is essential should be made.
The remaining Clauses of the Bill deal with one or two matters of importance. Clause 16 refers to the protection of medical practitioners who give certificates under the Lunacy Acts. The position of the medical practitioner to-day is one of considerable uncertainty, in-
deed many of them think that it is one of very real peril. The Royal Commission recognised that. To-day, if the medical practitioner is made defendant in a case for wrongful certification the onus of proof rests upon him to show that he has acted in good faith and with reasonable care. I think it is clear that we cannot completely remove responsibility from the medical man. After all, he has made a decision and, therefore, whilst we must keep upon him a certain measure of responsibility it is important on the other hand that he should have reasonable protection against cases which might be brought and which might mean his financial or professional ruin, even if the cases did not go against him. The Clause in the Bill follows very closely the proposal made in the Royal Commission's Report, which was drafted in detail by the very eminent legal members of the Commission.
A further important point in the later Clauses of the Bill is the Poor Law aspect of the problem. The Royal Commission desired a complete overhaul of the whole system of lunacy administration. That has not been possible, but it has been decided to dissociate people suffering from mental disorder from the Poor Law. We have in the Bill removed the pauper stigma by a declaration in Clause 18 that:
A person shall not be deemed to be in receipt of poor relief or be deprived of any right or privilege or be subjected to any disability by reason only that he or a member of his family is' being maintained under the provisions of the principal Act or of this Act in any place as a rate-aided patient.
5.0 p.m.
That provision, coupled with the abolition of the boards of guardians, will mark a very great step forward in lunacy administration. At the present time, under the Lunacy Acts if you are fortunate enough to be well-off you will not be visited by, shall I say, the relieving officer or a policeman, but, if you are poor and it is a case of emergency and something has to be done with you, you will be visited by the relieving officer or a policeman, as likely as not, and be taken to the workhouse. I think the House will agree that, if we are to get rid of the pauper stigma, that matter must be dealt with, and we have, therefore, in Clause 17 provided the same kind of procedure for the poor person in case
of sudden insanity or sudden mental disorder as applies to the well-to-do who may have a member of their family taken to a private hospital.
The provisions which I have outlined cover the main proposals of the Bill and carry into effect, with one exception to which I have already drawn attention, the recommendations of the Royal Commission except on two big points. I have already referred to the recommendation made by the Royal Commission with regard to the assimilation of procedure. It would be well if that could be done, but I am not sure that it could have been done very simply. It would have made the Bill highly controversial and I wanted to get the maximum with the minimum of controversy. It would, of course, have overloaded the present Measure. It would perhaps have been advisable to follow the Report in regard to the problem of licensed houses, but this is a burning question, full of deep-seated differences of opinion, a problem which clearly ought to be dealt with but one upon which the Royal Commission itself was divided. These matters, therefore, have been deliberately excluded from the Bill in order that we may get what I hope will be a relatively non-controversial Measure, designed to meet an urgent need, designed to revolutionise the mind of the people in their attitude towards mental disease, designed to provide better facilities for the early treatment of the disease and designed to reorganise our administrative machinery so as to make the constructive proposals more readily operative and more successful.
The House will not find in this Bill any sources for blinding differences of opinions. I am hoping that it will give a Second Reading to the Bill without the trouble of a Division, so that we may proceed to Standing Committee where every effort will be made to accept Amendments which will really improve the Bill so long as they do not interfere with the principles on which the Bill is based. In this matter, I can appeal to the common humanity and good sense of all sections of the House and ask them to support me in a Measure which I believe will open a new and important chapter in the history of public health in this country.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I welcome the main provisions of this Bill, because I think they represent a saner view of insanity. The Minister of Health has asked for the co-operation of all sections of the House in regard to these proposals, and I do not think he will ask in vain. He has asked us to treat this Bill on a nonparty basis and, provided that hon. Members on this side have a reasonable opportunity of discussing the provisions of the Measure on Second Reading and in Committee, we hope to co-operate with him in securing the insertion of Amendments which we think may be necessary in order to make an advance on this subject, as I believe the Bill itself is an advance.
When we discuss a Bill of this character, the question naturally arises whether the number of lunatics in this country is increasing or not. I speak subject to what may be said by members of the medical profession in this House who speak with more authority, but at any rate it can be said that mental illness is not being reduced and that the recovery rate is not particularly good. There is undoubtedly an increasing number of persons who are suffering from temporary mental troubles due to the increasing speed and strain of life; people who are not an active source of danger either to themselves or to others but who are suffering from ill-balances, and others, a second category, with a definite mental disorder but in other respects a clear insight, yet unable to trust themselves and who require care and oversight free from the possibility of further mental stress.
What is our present method and national policy in relation to these people who are suffering from such an unhappy and distressing disease? Although in many respects the old conceptions and the old unhappy methods concerning mental lunacy are disappearing, they die hard. In many respects, we are still manufacturing lunatics in this country, and the old idea of the helplessness and hopelessness of mental disease still prevails in many quarters. We know the old question:
Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased:
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow;
Raze out the written troubles of the brain.
A good many people are still answering this question in the negative. There is still, unhappily, a stigma applying to lunacy, harking back, I suppose, to the time when madmen were to be kept in chains and underground cellars. The idea with a large number of people today is still that mental disease involves some personal slur. The right hon. Gentleman, in his able speech this afternoon, quite rightly referred to the fear and dread of certification which exists in all classes of the community. A very striking communication which illustrates that point of view is, I believe, in the possession of the Ministry of Health. A man wrote a letter which I thought was very expressive of the need for some of the provisions of this Bill. He said:
My own wife had a breakdown six weeks after the birth of our little daughter, and we had to get her away at once to a private mental home. She was absolutely fit again in three weeks, yet to get her under proper care she had to be certified by two doctors and a J.P. She did not know it, and I pray she never will, for the knowledge that she had once been certified as a lunatic would be enough to send her permanently insane.
There are two grave defects, out of a number, in our present system. The first is that the present law places many obstacles in the way of early diagnosis and early treatment and, the second, that under present circumstances and under the present law there is very little hope of recovery for many poor people. It is perfectly true that the well-to-do man can obtain rest and treatment in some private home and by that means can in most cases, quickly restore his mental balance. The poorer man or woman, and the term includes not only the working men but the middle classes as well, must reach a final stage in the disease by which they are afflicted and be certified before the mental hospital or asylum can receive them. I welcome the provisions in the Bill which, for the first time, give the power to receive voluntary boarders. I do not know whether that is an apt title, but the intention and meaning deserve commendation. There are already a number of voluntary boarders in a number of private homes up and down the country who desire to co-operate in their treatment with the mental man and nurses in the institutions to which they voluntarily go. This provision in
the Bill is certainly one which a very large number of hon. Members will desire to support.
It has been put to me, and I daresay will also be expressed by some hon. Members, whether it would not be better, so far as people are concerned who offer themselves in this way for voluntary treatment, to remove them altogether from the jurisdiction of the Board of Control and by that means to dissociate this kind of illness altogether from lunacy and lunacy administration. That is a matter which we might well discuss in Committee on the Bill. It is only fair, in regard to people who are under age and who are placed temporarily in some home or institution of this character by their parents, to point out that the Board of Control can exercise some jurisdiction and can send members of the Board to visit such institutions.

Mr. McSHANE: May I say that such a suggestion is impossible, because in the Preamble of the Bill it states that it is an Act to amend the Lunacy Act as relating to the constitution and organisation of the work of the Board of Control. The Board of Control is fundamental.

Sir K. WOOD: With all respect to the hon. Member, I do not think that there will be any difficulty in altering the Bill in Committee.

Mr. SORENSEN: Perhaps we might have some observations on the matter from the Minister of Health?

Sir K. WOOD: I daresay those observations will be made when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health replies to the Debate. That is a matter which can be considered in Committee. I do not think that the title of the Bill will prevent us from limiting the powers of the Board of Control. We shall hear about that from the Minister later. It does give some protection for the Board of Control to be in charge in this particular way with this class of case—in the cases of what one might call infants, people who are under 16 years of age and who have been sent to these institutions by their parents. I read the report of the discussions in another place, and I found that a good deal of importance was attached by eminent lawyers to the fact that as, simply on the re
quest of parents, it was possible to place minors for a certain period in homes of this character, the power of the Board of Control to send commissioners was some measure of protection. How far that can be said to be a substantial statement we can consider when we discuss the Bill in Committee.
I wish to say a word or two on a more important provision which may raise a certain amount of controversy. That is the provision which permits temporary treatment in the case of the involuntary patient when there is reason to believe that there is hope of recovery. My hon. Friend who was Solicitor-General in the last Government will deal more particularly with that part of the Bill, and I shall not go into great detail about it. It will be seen that Clause 5 says—
Subject to the provisions of this Section, a person who is suffering from mental disorder and is for the time being incapable of volition, but who is likely to benefit by temporary treatment.
I think there is a measure of just criticism that the phrase "being incapable of volition" does raise many considerable difficulties. That, again, is a matter which calls for careful consideration in Committee. It is a very difficult thing to define. We must certainly see whether every protection is being afforded to the subject in this respect. I know that some of my hon. Friends have felt considerable anxiety regarding this part of the Measure. One does not want to state anything that in any way interferes with what is suggested, but it is true that for the first time in the law of this country no order is to be signed by what is called the judicial authority, and no reception order is to be made in respect of the detention of an individual. That detention may last for a considerable period. We have to consider, in the first place, whether such an alteration in the law is necessary and desirable, and, secondly, whether there are proper and adequate safeguards from the point of view of the liberty of the subject. There can be no question that if, subject to proper safeguards, we can make an alteration in the law which will permit people to get away from certification, it should be done.
It has been said to me, by deputations and otherwise, that when I state that there is a stigma in relation to certifica-
tion, I am not correctly stating the position, and that what I ought to say is that the stigma applies to incarceration in a public mental institution. But that is not my own particular experience. Anyone who has had to do, as I have had in days gone by, with the legal profession, knows the tremendous fight that most people and their families desire to put up against what is called "certified as a lunatic." There is no doubt of the very real apprehension in the minds of large numbers of people in this country, and that apprehension can be realised only by those who have had experience of a number of cases. Once a person has been certified as a lunatic in this country it is very difficult indeed for people to forget it, and although the patient may have recovered, the fact follows him for the rest of his life. If it can be done, I want to see the need of certification in these cases removed. Again speaking from my own personal experience, I doubt very much whether, from the point of view of the liberty of the subject, the intervention of justices of the peace is any particular protection. It is true that, under the present law, justices of the peace are supposed to consider these matters, and to make inquiry before they come to any conclusion. One need only read the report of Lord Macmillan's Commission to realise how in many parts of the country this part of the law is being carried out at the present time. In very many areas there are not justices specially selected for this purpose, as they ought to be, but the whole body of justices are given this particular power. There is the case of lunatics being certified by a justice of the peace travelling in a taxi, or after a very summary consideration of the facts.

Mr. KELLY: That shows the type of justices we have.

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter. Apart from that side of the question, even from the point of view of justices of the peace who do take their duties very seriously, it is a most difficult position in which to place any justice of the peace, when he is confronted by certificates signed by competent medical men, to ask him to differ from the medical conclusion. I shall not put it any higher, but I think it is possible to
exaggerate the safeguards which justices of the peace are in the present administration of the law. Then I ask myself the question, what are the safeguards which are included in this Bill and in the law generally to give the security which we all desire in cases of this kind? The first thing that can be said is this: That the ideas which used to surround the administration of lunacy, probably provoked by novels and works of romance—that there were many cases of people being wrongfully and improperly retained in asylums—are without foundation. Certainly if we have regard to the tribunals which have been set up by this House, the last two tribunals, we are bound to accept the general conclusion to which Lord Macmillan's Commission certainly came, and that is that the cases of wrongful detention must be of the rarest occurrence.
That statement was endorsed by every member of the Commission I suppose there could be no more careful check, and no one more anxious to have regard to the liberty of the subject than the Chairman of that Commission, Lord Macmillan, whom we are all glad to see appointed to the highest judicial body in the land. Associated with him are Earl Russell, who conducted this Bill so ably in another place, Sir Humphry Rolleston, Sir Ernest Hiley, the right hon. Gentleman the present Attorney-General, and my colleague the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell), who certainly would have special regard to matters of this kind. They certainly came to the conclusion that wrongful detention must be of the rarest occurrence. Another conclusion which has a bearing on this matter was that ill-usage is not deliberately or systematically practised in mental institutions'. I place a good deal of confidence in the Board of Control and its operations. I am not one of those who for a moment desire to make any general indictment against the Board of Control. I have had sufficient association with them during the last five years to appreciate the work that they have done and are doing. I was glad to see that Lord Macmillan's Commission, again unanimously, came to the conclusion that they were doing their work very well indeed.
In considering this novel proposal in Clause 5, the fact that members of the Board of Control can visit these patients
at any time is a considerable safeguard. The fact that before the provisions of the Clause can be put into operation the application has to be signed by two medical men, one of whom must: be approved by the Board of Control and therefore must occupy what one might call an independent position, is good too. I also attach a good deal of importance to the fact that in all these institutions up and down the country, where these unhappy sufferers may be, there are in charge of them, as superintendents, men who, taking all their many duties into account, perform their very difficult work well; and they are men who, if at any time there was any question of any person being wrongfully detained, would be the first to intervene. As regards the superintendents, I hope that as a result of this Measure and of further administrative alterations they will be given more time to attend to their proper duties and will be relieved of many duties which are not appropriate to their position. Having regard to the many safeguards which exist, apart from those I have mentioned, I am inclined to feel, though I do not speak for everyone on this side of the House, that this proposal is worthy of consideration and that it will mean a tremendous change for the better as regards securing treatment for a large number of cases which are unhappily at the present time unable to get it.
That brings me to a further observation. One of the great difficulties in connection with lunacy administration to-day is the responsibility attaching to members of the medical profession. It is only right to say that the burden of responsibility on the medical profession is considerably increased by this Bill. I have a good deal of sympathy with the plea which many medical men have made that, if possible, some further protection ought to be afforded to them in cases of this kind. The difficulty of the situation is such that large numbers of doctors to-day hesitate considerably about giving certificates. That is not a good thing in the interests of the administration, nor is it a good thing in the interests of the patients themselves. The suggestion is made that there is an endeavour in Clause 16 of the Bill to give some protection to the medical profession in this respect, but I would very much like to see that protection extended. I am doubtful whether the protection afforded
under Clause 16 takes us very much further in the matter. Speaking very roughly, and perhaps not very accurately, all it comes to is this. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will follow this particular point, because it concerns those who used to be called members of the lower branch of the legal profession.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The working branch.

Sir K. WOOD: Yes. I suppose they were called members of the lower branch because they were paid lower fees. It is suggested under this provision that before any proceedings are taken against a medical man in respect of certification or anything of that kind, the medical man should have the right of asking that the matter be referred to a Judge in chambers who, before the action is allowed to proceed, is to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case. That provision does not seem to add very much to the protection of the medical man. I suppose that any member of the Junior Bar, with little or no experience, could put in a statement of claim showing a prima facie, case on which it would be very difficult indeed for a Judge to take the responsibility of saying, "I am not satisfied that an action should go forward."
I should like, if possible, to have this Clause strengthened. I do not know if it would be possible to have a medical assessor sitting with the Judge in dealing with a matter of this kind or not, but I should be interested to hear what the Attorney-General has to say as to the value of this Clause. The necessity of doing something is very great. I remember answering questions on a great many occasions in this House about what was known as the Harnett case, a case which was brought 12 years after the certificate had been given by a particular medical man, and it was most difficult, indeed, for him to rebut the charges made against him after the lapse of such a considerable period. I think it very desirable that there should be some further alteration of the law so as to give reasonable protection in cases of the kind.
I do not propose at this stage to say anything particularly about the Board of
Control because I think we can discuss it more usefully when dealing with the Financial Resolution. But I believe I express the desires and opinions of a good many of my hon. Friends on this side in saying that this question of the extension of the powers of the Board of Control and the transfer of powers from the Ministry of Health to the Board of Control ought to have careful examination. I am not altogether satisfied that the arrangement suggested in the Bill about dividing the Board of Control into two parts and giving a different status to the Commissioners is altogether a good one. At any rate, I will reserve what I have to say on that matter until we are discussing the Financial Resolution.
I wish to say something on the responsibilities and duties which will be placed on local authorities by the Bill. The views of the London County Council, in this case, as always, are entitled to consideration from this House, and they have asked me to put forward certain contentions regarding the claim which they think the local authorities have in respect of additional financial assistance. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister said—and he argued it very well indeed— that the Local Government Act of 1929 had brought further financial assistance to the local authorities of the country. I read about the Minister of Health going, I think it was, to the Poor Law Conference a few months ago, and giving a very excellent account of the new Local Government. Act and all that it was doing for the Poor Law guardians of the country. At the end of his speech there was some sort of a minor riot. They said, "Surely this is not the right hon. Gentleman who used to talk about the Poor Law guardians and how shamefully they were treated by the Tory Government," and they examined the right hon. Gentleman very closely. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I believe that some persons actually shouted out about the extra ordinary position of the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. BROAD: Is this in order?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Whether it is in order or not it is entirely untrue.

Sir K. WOOD: I understand that there was a reference to the position of the right hon. Gentleman as he was in Opposition
and to his present position as Minister. To-day he quite rightly says that the Local Government Act brings further financial assistance to the local authorities of the country. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman made that statement because of a desire to resist any suggestion that the local authorities should receive any further financial aid in respect of this Measure. He was quite right from the point of view of his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is very nervous on this question at present and is likely to be more nervous still as April approaches. The right hon. Gentleman seemed very anxious that there should be no question of his giving any encouragement to the idea that local authorities should receive any further financial aid from the Exchequer in connection with this proposal. He rightly pointed out that a further £5,000,000 had been provided for the local authorities by a beneficent Conservative administration.
It is only right to say, in support of the contention of the London County Council and other authorities, that Clause 6. Sub-section (1), imposes the duty on every local authority to provide and maintain suitable accommodation for the reception of temporary patients in accordance with the provisions of Clause 5, while Sub-section (2) empowers a local authority to receive and lodge any person as a voluntary boarder and to maintain and treat him in any institution under their control on such terms and conditions as to payment or otherwise as may be agreed. Sub-section (3) also empowers local authorities to make arrangements for the treatment of persons as out-patients, to make provision for the after-care of persons who have undergone treatment, and to undertake research in relation to mental disorder and the treatment thereof. In the Financial Memorandum which was attached to the Bill in another place specific reference is made to the expenses of local authorities in relation to new powers or duties conferred or imposed by the Bill. The London County Council also desires to call the attention of the House to Section 135 of the Local Government Act—that Act which has now been so enthusiastically taken up by the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary. Section 135 says:
It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that, in the event of
material additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of a new public-health or other service after the commencement of this Act, provision shall be made for increased contributions out of the moneys provided by Parliament.
The Loudon County Council state that they are advised that the Mental Treatment Bill, if it becomes law, will create a new public health service and it is only fair to say from their point of view that in the Report of Lord Macmillan's Committee reference is made to the question of new expenditure. On page 173 of the Report is the following passage:
If our recommendations are adopted local authorities will be entrusted with powers and duties involving new expenditure. As we have endeavoured to show this new expenditure will not be wholly unremuncrative. But although we are reluctant at the present time to recommend any addition to the burdens of the Exchequer, we consider that in providing a lunacy service on the lines proposed in our report, it is essential that local authorities should be assisted by an Exchequer grant. The present 4s. grant payable from the Exchequer Contribution Account of the county and county borough councils is now wholly inadequate …. The Exchequer grant for lunacy administration should, in our view, be available on conditions designed to ensure active supervision by the Board of Control. We conceive that a lunacy grant may ultimately be included in consolidated grants for health services. We do not know whether the block grant system will adequately ensure the detailed control which we consider essential in the initial development of the new lunacy service. It may be that a special ad hoc grant will, in the first instance, be the more appropriate vehicle.
It is only fair to the local authorities that that statement should be made on their behalf, and I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary, when she comes to reply, will state what is the view of the Government on that important matter. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that there are still a good many urgent matters to be dealt with. The Bill deals with the most urgent and least controversial recommendations of the Commission, but the question of licensed houses, which is not dealt with in this Bill, is one which raises acute controversy. There is a very important matter which will have to be faced sooner or later in connection with lunacy administration, and that is the complete assimilation of the methods of certification.
The Bill, subject to the criticisms and observations which I have made, is to be
commended; it is on right lines and makes provision for the preventive treatment of mental derangement, which is so necessary; it will result, if properly put into practice, in fewer people becoming insane; and it recognises that mental illnees, like other illnesses, If taken in time, can in many cases be cured. The Bill is also particularly to be commended because it gives every mentally afflicted man or woman, of whatever station in life, a chance of recovery in a properly equipped mental hospital. I commend the Bill for those particular reasons, and we, on this side, will be happy to help in endeavouring to assist its passage into law. During the Committee stage we hope to make various alterations and suggestions, if possible, for further improvement. Other Members may desire to speak on the Bill, and many of them may speak with more practical experience than I can, but I hope that without undue delay we shall afford the Bill a Second Reading.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I hope the House will grant me that indulgence which is always accorded to a Member having the privilege, as I have, of addressing it for the first time. I have taken a great deal of interest in this subject, and 20 years as a medical practitioner have convinced me more and more that there is a very-urgent need of such a Measure The fact that for over half that time I have also acted as a magistrate in the County of Denbigh will enable me I hope to look at this problem not altogether through the spectacles of a medical man. The Hill deals, not so much with insanity, as with the prevention of insanity. We know that both the public and the medical profession have in recent years very considerably changed in their attitude towards mental disease. Mental disease has become more allied to physical disease, and, after all, the line of demarcation between the two is very thin. Time was when unfortunate lunatics were put in chains in this country, and even to-day there are echoes of the time when they were regarded more as criminals in dungeons than as mental patients, although for generations past treatment in mental hospitals has been, I think, satisfactory.
At the present time, the State, for all purposes, treats insane persons in two classes—the private and the pauper
classes. From a legislative point of view, the State recognises the overwhelming majority of those unfortunate people as paupers, and, if the Bill did nothing but alter that state of affairs, it would be justified. The Lunacy Act of 1890 is, from a legal and administrative point of view, a completely logical and well-drafted Measure, but its very perfection in that respect has been a calamity to persons sick in mind. These cases ought to be treated early, but that is a minor consideration in the Act of 1890, with the result that mental patients to a great extent have suffered on that account.
This Bill tries to remedy that defect in many ways, and it divides the mentally afflicted people into three classes. There are, first, the voluntary or willing, and secondly, the involuntary, or rather the people incapable of volition, who are described in Clause 5. Those are people who are too ill to object or consent: they are people who are incapable of giving a reasoned assent or dissent. The third class of mentally afflicted people are the definitely certifiable people, with whom the Bill hardly deals at all, except by allusion to them and the extent to which the other classes that I have mentioned may merge into this particular class.
I welcome Clauses 1 to 4, dealing with voluntary boarders. I should prefer the term "voluntary patients," and I hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his, way to alter that word "boarder." We all know what a boarder means, but a "voluntary boarder" arouses a little curiosity, and that is the very thing we do not want to do with these people. It is a small change, but it would be a great improvement on the Bill. What is this class? It is the class of persons who may have had an influenza attack, or who may feel out of sorts, who may have headaches and so forth, people who go to the doctor and begin to feel that they are going off their heads, to use a common expression. At the present time in this country there are only two institutions that can deal with this class of persons, if they are poor. If they are rich, there are, of course, plenty of private establishments where they can go. If they are poor, they are the very class you want to cater for. If they can go quietly, without any stigma or curiosity, and secure treatment at an
early stage, they will probably never become certifiably insane persons at all. I very heartily welcome this Clause dealing with voluntary treatment.
Clause 5, which is causing more controversy than any other Clause in the Bill, deals with those incapable of volition. It deals with a large class of mental ailments. I have mentioned influenza. I am very reluctant to mention the word neurasthenia, which is very much abused and is sometimes the refuge of the ne'er-do-well. It is also a useful defence in many a Court of Law in this country; but neurasthenia can be a very serious ailment, with very afflicting and alarming symptoms that definitely border on insanity itself, and these are cases which, if they are treated as temporary patients under this Clause, may receive, and, I am sure, will receive, considerable benefit.
I should like to make allusion to one particular class of patients referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, and also, I think, by the right hon. Member the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry—that type of case known as puerperal mania. That time of rejoicing in a household is in these cases followed in a very short time by a very dark cloud. I have seen cases of this kind in a provincial hospital, with 50 beds, where the mother of a child develops in a few days' time symptoms of acute mania, symptoms where there has been danger, not only to herself and her child, but to everyone around her. At the present time, it is impossible to treat patients of that sort, unless you send them to a mental hospital or a lunatic asylum, and regard them as definitely insane individuals, but I am sure that that is not as it should be, and I think there should be a change in regard to that class of case. The very child whose birth has given rise to such terrible consequences to the mother may all its life be reminded of a stigma of that character, which is a purely temporary matter, and which, in the ordinary way, can be treated without certification and need not entail any stigma which is the consequence of certification. I welcome this Clause very much indeed. It is the very crux of the Bill, and I am pleased to find that in the other place, after very considerable discussion of its main provisions, it has
escaped unharmed, and the few Amendments that were incorporated in the Clause have very considerably improved it.
6.0 p.m.
I should like to say a word or two in regard to the position of magistrates. This Clause abolishes, for the first time in this country, the judiciary, as it were, in dealing with mental patients. My own view is that the intervention of a magistrate in this sort of case is unnecessary and may even be harmful. I think that we can in this respect follow Scotland, which in this matter as well as many other things gives us a very good lead. I will give a quotation, and, although it is from a medical man, the House will agree that, on account of his eminence, it is quite an unbiased opinion. I refer to a statement made by Dr. George M. Robertson, president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, professor of Psychological Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, and physician superintendent of the Royal Hospital, Morningside. He states, in regard to the Act of 1857. which has served in Scotland for 70 years, that:
It definitely recognises the paramount position of the medical profession in the treatment of mental diseases, for under its provisions no layman or magistrate is called upon to interview the patient before he is placed in a mental hospital, and no layman or visiting committee is held to he responsible for his removal when recovered. Medical men discharge these and all similar duties, and to this system must be ascribed the success of the Scottish system. It has gained the confidence of the people, and in place of misgiving and suspicion there is pride in our mental hospitals and their management. No case of improper detention has ever been recorded in our Law Courts.
That is very significant in regard to the question of the powers of the magistrates. This Clause is a charter for the poor, and will help them to early treatment, which is the great essential, and to full protection, as far as I can see. Clauses 6 to 10 deal with the powers and duties of the local authorities. I know that local authorities are rather alarmed in regard to these Clauses, but I think that some of them are unduly and unnecessarily alarmed. The powers that are sought in this Bill are powers of co-ordination mostly, and, if the right hon. Gentleman can in one or two respects reassure the local authorities on some of the matters contained in these Clauses, it- might help.
They deal with three questions, which will be of considerable help—the question of out-patients' treatment, for the first time in mental cases; the question of after-treatment when patients have been discharged from hospital; and the question of research. I would like to say a word on that. The medical profession do not know anything like as much about mental diseases as they do about a large number of other ailments of a physical character. It is a very intricate, complicated and difficult type of disease, and the more opportunities we can have for research the better. I am glad that in this Bill there are provisions for local authorities to spend money on research in regard to mental treatment.
Clauses 12 to 15 deal with the constitution of the Board of Control. That board was constituted in 1845. It is about time there was some change in its constitution. At the present time, the members are scattered all over the country visiting various hospitals. The problem is so great and intricate, that a certain number of them ought to remain at headquarters in London in order to be able to supervise, guide, and generally co-ordinate the work of their junior officers. Clause 15 deals with the power to make rules, and I am glad to hear the assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Board of Control is not going to be a sort of supererogatory body over the House of Commons. I had occasion to ask some questions about one or two semi-medical bodies, and I was informed that there is no Minister in the House who can be asked a question regarding them, and it is reassuring to he told by the Minister of Health that he will be responsible to the House for the Board of Control on all occasions.
I am rather reluctant to talk about Clause 16. Medical men at the present time are seriously perturbed and alarmed about certification; in fact, a large number of them positively refuse to certify. I can assure the House that there is no piece of work, no single individual work that is clone by a medical man in the whole of his life, which he undertakes with more responsibility than that of certifying one of his fellow creatures for a mental hospital. I should like to see a little more protection than even this Clause gives. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman adopt the Amend-
ment which was moved in the other place. We do not ask protection for the rascal or for the unscrupulous; we just ask protection where a medical man has conscientiously and to the best of his knowledge and belief exercised his judgment, so that he shall not be mulcted in heavy damages, heavy expense, considerable anxiety, and, possibly, the ruin of his professional vocation.
While these are a few of the suggestions that I want to make, and which I hope to incorporate in the Bill in conjunction with my hon. Friends on these benches who are specially interested, I welcome the Bill. It does not fully deal with the lunacy code as one would like it to do; it leaves out, for example, the very vexed question of licensed houses. There is the same number of beds in licensed houses to-day as there were in 1890. I understand that the Royal Commission was a little divided or undecided in regard to it, but the question will have to be faced. Either licensed houses are performing useful functions to the community, in which case they ought to have facilities for increasing their beds, or they are detrimental to the community, in which case they ought to be restricted or abolished.
The Bill is a successful attempt to carry out the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General and the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) were members. It changes the whole attitude of the legislature from the horrible word "detention," associated as it is with all the stigma of lunacy and the clanking of chains. It changes the whole attitude from the word "detention" to the words "prevention" and "treatment." It. makes certification of an insane person, not a preliminary, but the very last resort. It gives the poor something of the chance of the wealthy for the first time in regard to lunacy. It changes the word "pauper" into "rate-aided patient"; and it substitutes for the words "lunatic asylum" the words "rate-aided mental hospital." I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this Bill, and I can assure him, from my own experience, that he will bring a new era of hope to those of our fellow-creatures who are, or who
may be, inflicted with mental disorder, the most terrible calamity that can befall a household, not even, excepting death itself. It is because I believe in the whole aim of this Bill, subject to the necessary safeguards for protection to the individual, which every citizen has a right to expect, and it is because I believe that the whole conception and aim of the Bill is to ameliorate, prevent, and cure mental affliction, that I heartily welcome it.

Dr. ETHEL BENTHAM: I heartily welcome the introduction of this Bill, which is a step in the beginning of a reform which has been overdue for very many years. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones) express so well some of the views that I hold. The difficulty of the problem is that it is a question of getting the confidence of the. public in whatever kind of machinery is set up. The difficulty of dealing with this subject is enormous; I cannot think of any more difficult thing, because there are so many points of view from which it can be regarded. People naturally believe that lunacy or insanity or whatever you call it, is hereditary, and will prejudice not only themselves if they should recover, but their families and descendants; and they are necessarily and naturally very loath even to call in anybody, or to take any steps to deal with it; and they go on hoping that if they can anyhow keep their dear ones at home, it will be for the better in the long run. They also view with a great deal of distrust the methods by which treatment is given. There are a good many reasons for that distrust. One is that for well-to-do people, most of the institutions in which they can be treated are run for private profit. That makes them absolutely distrustful.
Another reasons is that seven-eighths of the people who are certified have to go through the Poor Law, and there is a horror of the way in which they are treated, although I do not believe that they are badly treated intentionally, but the circumstances surrounding their reception are such that it is no wonder people de almost anything to avoid disclosing insanity. I have seen a reception ward which had about 18 patients. In one corner I saw a case of puerperal mania; in another bed a raging drunkard who had been brought
in in the middle of the night; then two people who spent their time whining in a corner; and somebody who took the opportunity to throw things at the nurse every time she turned her back. The reception ward is a scandal and has been for a very long time. The third thing which makes people so nervous of disclosing insanity in the family is the mysterious and awful Board of Control. I may say that I have been 13 years a general practitioner and have acted as a justice under these Acts ever since women magistrates were first appointed, and so I have had considerable knowledge. When, in the interests of a patient, I have had to go to the Board of Control, I have found it human when you could get at it. But it is a mysterious board. People do not know of its name or how to get at it.
Those are the three things which make the treatment of insanity extremely difficult. If we could once get it into the minds of people that there was no reason for them to hide insanity or aberration of the intellect as though it were leprosy, and if it were once understood that the majority of the people trying to treat it, whether magistrates, doctors or the Board of Control, were trying to do their best, but that the circumstances in which they are acting make it very difficult, indeed, for that, best to be done, and if, in addition, we could bring about a more trustful attitude on the part of the public, I believe many of the difficulties would solve themselves. While we are trying to secure the liberty of the subject and are enormously concerned that no person who is not insane shall be kept in an asylum, we must also realise that the patient is an extremely helpless person.
The patient needs to be protected, first of all against himself, and in many instances against his relatives; in my experience, the relatives are the people from whom he most often needs to be protected. I knew a case, a good many years ago now, of a man who had been discharged from a lunatic asylum. On the second morning after his discharge a lady calling on his wife went into his house. It was in one of those northern towns where the doors are always on the latch, and she walked in just in time to prevent him cutting his throat. She had the presence of mind to say, "Not there, man, not there; come over to the sink.
Think what a mess you will make !" That saved him. Only two days before that man had been discharged from an asylum, supposed to be cured. I could give many other instances, but I only-want to stress the fact that insanity is such a mysterious thing that it is very hard to make sure that a patient is really cured, and the general public cannot very well judge. They visit a patient and find him apparently in the enjoyment of every faculty, and think it is quite safe for him to be released. In many cases the people who look the best are possibly those least able to be trusted by themselves.
Then there is the question of relatives. My mind goes back to the very sad case of a woman, who was a patient of mine in the North, and came to me when she was pregnant. She said that she had three times been in the asylum for puerperal mania and she begged me to see that she was not released on the next occasion, because of her husband. Regarding the question of certification by justices, I think the chief use of the despised justice is that he provides a second opinion. If it is laid down that in every case, pauper or otherwise, two medical opinions have to be obtained, then the certificate of the justice is not very much wanted; but where there is only a single opinion, then the justice does fulfil a useful part, I remember a case in which a gentleman came to ask me if I would act as certifying justice in the case of his father. I said that I would, because it was part of my duty as a justice, and asked where I could see the patient. "Oh, you cannot see him" was the reply. "We think that will be too exciting." I refused to certify under such circumstances, and from private inquiries which I made afterwards I should say there was probably some financial reason for wanting certification.
Then there was the case of a pauper patient, an old man who was found wandering in the streets of London and was taken to the reception ward by the police. After he had been there two days the time arrived for the bi-weekly visitation of the justices who certify. During the time he had been there he had not spoken, and the medical certificate referred to him as being silent, morose and unable to give any account of himself and evidently needing treatment. Something,
I do not know what, suggested to me that I should speak to him in French, and then he gave a very good account of himself. The fact that these mistakes can be made in quite good faith does show that where to-day you have only one medical opinion you certainly ought to provide an opinion from some other person, though I think the non-medical justice is at such a disadvantage in face of medical certificates and medical opinion that it is really better to have the opinion of two medical men. Where there are two medical certificates the certifying justice might very well be dispensed with.
As I have said, the Board of Control is a mysterious body which heretofore we have always distrusted very much because it could not be got at, but where you have the fact that a patient is in an institution run for private profit and in view of the fact that he has to be protected not only against himself but against his relatives, it is very necessary to have some superintending and controlling body. We may call it the Board of Control or anything else—that docs not matter—but there must be someone to protect the patient. I think the re-christening of the Board of Control would be a quite useful thing, but it is to be understood that some steps must be taken to give an appeal to the Board of Control and to bring about a greater public trust in the Board. The Board itself must come more to the front, its name and its place of abode must be known, and it must be possible for the relatives of the patients to get into direct contact with it.
Then, I think, we shall have done a good deal to lessen public distrust and to make the public feel that mental disease is no more a thing to be hidden or ashamed of than scarlet fever or diphtheria, and that it does not impair the prospects of the relations of the patient for the rest of their lives. Get this out into a common sense, open discussion and I think you will take most of the terrors away from it. I would make only one other suggestion about the Board of Control; I think the number of three members is too limited. I feel it will be necessary to have two doctors, one a man and one a woman on the Board of Control, and I would like to see the
membership enlarged to five. With that amendment and the bringing of it into the open I believe a great many of our difficulties will be lessened, and that we shall be able to go on to the other steps that will naturally follow when once we have accomplished this first step.

Sir D. NEWTON: In his lengthy exposition of this Bill the Minister told us that he was dealing with only a few of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission. May I express regret that he was unable to deal with the Report as a whole? The Report was published 4½ years ago and cost the country £2,300 to prepare, and the Commission itself was set up more than 6½ years ago. When the country goes to the expense of setting up an important Commission, I think it is desirable to take due note of the recommendations they make, and deal with them as soon as possible. With the general object of the Bill there will be agreement. All engaged in social work, all who are brought into contact with the feeble-minded are alive to the needs of further legislation and conscious of the value of legislation to deal with those suffering from incipient mental disease. From the point of view of local authorities, county councils and county boroughs, we welcome this Bill although we do not by any means welcome all the provisions contained in the Measure. I would like to refer to Clause 6. Under that Clause the provisions are mandatory, and it is made the duty of public authorities
to provide and maintain suitable accommodation for the reception of Temporary patients.
Those are rather strong words when you are directing a local authority to do something, and when you are not making any contribution towards the expenses of that local authority. I should have thought it would have been better if the provisions had been to the effect that the local authorities should be requested to investigate the needs of their areas, and take such steps as they considered necessary to provide and obtain suitable accommodation.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): We have already given power to local authorities to deal with these non-volition people, and it is the duty
of the local authority to deal with those eases.

Sir D. NEWTON: I am much obliged for that explanation; nevertheless, I think some more financial contribution ought to be made. I would like to say a word or two with regard to the Board of Control. The powers of the Ministry of Health are being transferred wholly to the Board of Control, but I challenge the wisdom of that course. The local authorities are responsible bodies. Their powers and duties have been largely increased, and the safeguard is that they are publicly-elected bodies, and thus subject to public control. They should have been consulted in the matter and been given, perhaps, wider powers.
With regard to block grants, these have only recently been fixed, and it seems strange that a new financial obligation is now about to be imposed upon local authorities. When fixing the grants, the Ministry of Health must have known that this Bill was about to be introduced, and they must have known that it would probably be passed and placed on the Statute Book. It seems to me that the powers of the Board of Control are too far-reaching. The duty of the Board of Control is to protect the liberty of the subject, and to say whether in the public interest a man should be detained. It should be within the power of the Board of Control to say when a man should be released, and it should also be the duty of the Board to carry on an intensive system of research. It should not be the duty of the Board of Control to interfere with local government, and possibly to override the wishes of the elected local government representatives. This Measure appears to give the Board of Control far too much power over local authorities, because they have, for example, to obtain the approval of the Board when they desire to enlarge a building, and the Board have to approve of the plan of the local authority. I think the submission of details of that kind to a Board which is not an elected body is a false step, and the past history of the Board of Control does not encourage us to give them new powers when we consider their dilatory methods in the past. I think I am right in saying that in the case of Colchester there has been great delay. Four years ago endeavour was made to put through a scheme and as a
result of the action, or inaction, of the Board of Control the services which were badly needed have been restricted, and it has been impossible to deal with certain urgent cases, and there are over 30 such at the present time. It seems to me that under the terms of this Bill when perhaps a county borough is cut out of a county council area, any subsequent negotiations and arrangements between that county borough and the county council should not be subject to the intervention and approval of the Board of Control. Surely it should be competent for the local authority administering an area if it is cut into two sections for both bodies to get into touch with each other without being obliged to consult an outside body. For these reasons I hope the provisions relating to the Board of Control will be considerably amended in Committee. I was glad to hear the Minister of Health state that he would be responsible for answering questions on the Floor of this House, and for the work of the Board of Control, and that he will be responsible for it. There is an old French proverb which runs: "There are more fools than clever people in the world, and among the clever people there is more folly than wisdom." Let us therefore welcome this Measure as a contribution to deal with the difficult problem of mental affliction.

Dr. HASTINGS: I think that all who are interested in the early treatment of mental disease will welcome this Bill. There may be two opinions as to the exact status of the Board of Control, but I think such matters might very well be dealt with during the Committee stage of this Bill. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) had something to say about the Board of Control. He mentioned a good many of its functions, and I should like to add to the list he gave a supervisory function in connection with the treatment of cases suffering from mental disease. It seems to me that that function is a very important one when we are dealing with the Board of Control. It may be necessary to alter the exact status of that Board, but I feel very strongly that some supervisory authority will always be necessary in dealing with mental disease.
There are two considerations in connection with mental disease which require attention. The first is the question of
what is best for the patient, what treatment ought to be given and what can be done to increase the patient's comfort. Another important point is the protection of the public, the protection of the patient from himself and the protection of the good name of the patient's family. It seems to me that to achieve this latter object some form of detention is necessary. I am associated with a hospital in which we treat early cases of mental disease, and our difficulty is that we have no power of detention at all. Therefore, our selection of cases is strictly limited, and we cannot forcibly detain patients even when it is in their own interest, and when we feel that they ought to be detained.
I would like to stress more particularly to-day the possibility of the treatment and cure of mental disease. Not long ago mental disease was thought to be an act of God, but now we are learning more and more that something can be done to alleviate this disease, and sometimes to cure it. I have seen cases of severe insanity treated and cured by ordinary medical treatment or by a relatively simple operation on the nose. I am associated with a hospital where we take in early cases of mental disease. Many of these patients suffer from some other medical or surgical ailments that can be recognised when these patients are closely examined by physicians and surgeons accustomed to deal with these other affections and when those other conditions are treated the patients very often rapidly recover. One great point in favour of this Bill is that it allows public money to be spent on the treatment of early cases of mental disease which is now impossible.
The hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones), in a most excellent speech, pointed out that you can divide those suffering from mental disease into three categories. Firstly the patient who feels that he himself is going a little wrong and desires treatment. Secondly, cases which are incapable of volition, that is to say the type of patient who will not say "Yes" or "No" when you ask if he wishes to be retained. The third type of case is one which is not dealt with in this Bill, but which, I think, it is important to say a word or two about—I refer to the patient who does not know that he is insane, but thinks everybody else is.
These are the people whom it is desirable to consider at the present time. Sometimes these people recover as has been shown by the Minister of Health, but when they cease their anti-social behaviour their ego does not change. They did not believe they were insane before, and when they recover they do not believe that they have been insane. These are the people who write pamphlets and distribute them to Members of Parliament and try to catch Members of Parliament in the Outer Lobby. It is these people who try to impress the public with the evils of asylum treatment and with the sins of the Board of Control. I think we have to recognise that a great many early cases of mental disease are curable, but it is necessary to have some power of detention in such cases, and, unless that power is obtained, not very-much can be done.
I was very interested to hear the Minister of Health, in his opening speech, say that the stigma of certification is a real thing. There is no question that that is the case, and I would like to remind the Minister that the stigma of association with the certified is also a real thing. I would like to see further provisions in this Bill for the withdrawal of the voluntary boarders, and those who are not capable of volition, as far as possible from association with the certified and for bringing them into closer association with the treatment of ordinary medical and surgical diseases. I believe that, if a Clause could be inserted in the Bill encouraging the local authorities or even compelling them, to do this, it would be a very great help indeed. I must not detain the House longer, because I know that there are other Members who wish to speak, but I would like to say that, although there may be ways in which the Bill can be improved during the Committee stage, it makes a very-great advance in providing for the treatment of early mental disease.

Captain GUNSTON: I also would like to join in congratulating the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on introducing this Measure, I am one of those who believe that there is good in all people and in all parties. I admit that, having looked for the germ of goodness in the present Government, I have found it to be, like the germ of influenza, very hard to find, but perhaps at last we have found it. The best
Measures that are passed in this House are really those which are of a non-party and non-controversial nature, and I have been very much struck, in reading this Bill, by the fact that the putting into force of many of its excellent provisions rests very much on our magnificent Act for the reform of the Poor Law which was passed last year. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), I wish that the Bill were more far-reaching. It is quite true that that Royal Commission reported several years ago, but a good many non-party Bills have been passed during the interval, and I think that the present Government are very wise in now including in such a Bill the provisions which the Royal Commission suggested were most necessary.
There is one thing for which we ought to be very grateful, and that is the name of the Bill, "The Mental Treatment Bill," because it describes so exactly what we are trying to do. I would like, not being a doctor but a layman, to point out, because I think there is rather a misconception on the subject in the country, the difference between a mental deficient and a person mentally afflicted. This Bill does not deal with the mental deficient. Someone who has to do with this terrible disease remarked to me the other day that a mental deficient was rather like an engine from which a cog was missing which could never be replaced, while, on the other hand, a mentally afflicted person is like an engine in which a cog or gear has got out of place, which, with proper treatment can be put back, bringing the person concerned into as good a condition as that in which he was before.
I must say that, when I read the Report of the Royal Commission, I was rather shocked to find that there is no doubt—it has been pointed out in the House many times to-night—that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor, and I am sure that everyone will congratulate the Government on bringing in at last a Measure which as going to enable the poor to get very early treatment, and in many cases to be cured. The Minister gave us some very interesting reasons for the advantages of early treatment, and I think he said that in one hospital a quarter or more of the patients who recovered were people who had had early
treatment. He went on to say that they only got this treatment at the present moment by having to go through the unpleasant process of being certified. I do not know if every Member in the House has read the Report of the Royal Commission. Very often reports of Royal Commissions are rather dull reading, but, if anybody has not read this one, I would humbly suggest that they should do so, because it is almost like reading an absorbing novel. It is one of the most magnificent reports that has ever been written, as we might have expected when we remember that it was written by Lord Macmillan. Anyone who has heard Lord Macmillan before a Private Bill Committee will know that he is unequalled in his command of lucid language.
There is one difficulty in regard to these distressing complaints that we are all united in wishing to overcome, and it is very well emphasised in the Report, which says:
The keynote of the past has been detention. The keynote of the future should be prevention and treatment. But it is just here that the crucial difficulty of the whole matter resides. Owing to the special nature of the symptoms of mental illness, treatment must in many cases involve compulsion and restraint. This is the element which differentiates the treatment of insanity from the treatment of other illnesses. The patient suffering from an ordinary ailment is generally an intelligent co-operator in his own treatment and cure; he is able to appreciate what is being done for him, and no coercive restriction of his liberty is needed. In many cases of insanity this is not so.
I think that the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Hastings) emphasised that point. The Report goes on:
The illness has affected the patient's intelligence and his ability to appreciate his position. His will has ceased for the time being to be rational. In such cases, where there can be no voluntary submission to treatment, the treatment must needs be compulsory.
Here we come to the age-long difficulty of finding the right treatment of the subject without violating the ancient law of the liberty of the subject. If the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me to say so, I think she can congratulate herself on her success in overcoming this difficulty. I am emboldened to say that by the fact that very few lawyers have tome here this afternoon to talk about the liberty of the subject, and I think their absence shows that they must be
satisfied. We know that as a general rule one has only to mention the liberty of the subject and lawyers flock to the House, a sort of habeas corpus look comes into their faces, and they promptly imagine that they have been briefed in a case of St. George v. Dragon.
The problem of compulsion has to be faced, and we must admit that we are bound in this matter, especially in regard to non-volitional cases, to restrict to a certain extent the liberty of the subject. Every member of society must sacrifice some of his liberty to-day. We are controlled at every step in all walks of life. We know, for instance, that if a man is suffering from an infectious disease he has to suffer some restriction of his liberty. The mentally afflicted, unfortunately, may have to be detained, but our idea must be compulsory detention with only one object, namely, the effective treatment and, if possible, the cure of the patient. I agree that we want to see every safeguard that is necessary put into the Bill, but do not let us overload the Bill with so many safeguards that we cannot get the cure that we all want for these poor people.
The Minister quoted the Royal Commission on the danger of stigma, and I think that every hon. Member who has spoken has pointed out that the stigma of certification is what so many people fear; but I do not know if it has been pointed out this afternoon—I do not think it has—that the stigma not only attaches to the person certified, but extends to his children as well. I should like to call the attention of the House to the evidence given before the Royal Commission by Dr. Devine, who said:
It is a very serious slur; it is irrational that it should be so, but it is. If a patient is certified, not only is that patient subjected to a very insidious and unpleasant social censorship hereafter, but the children are as well. I see it repeatedly. Take the case of a woman who is certified for puerperal insanity. I can think of a case at the moment in which the children have been brought up with everyone around them watching every mortal movement they make, and finding evidence of abnormality, creating neurosis. These children are brought up with a sort of biological inferiority, which is the worst thing anybody can have. I have no hesitation in 6aying that many people become confirmed neurotics from the fact that their relations have been certified ….. I have seen it repeatedly.
I congratulate the Government on having taken a step towards removing the stigma from people so afflicted, and from their children. The hon. Member for Reading pointed out, I think very rightly, with regard to voluntary boarders, that it is desirable to keep voluntary boarders and all these cases from association with people who are mentally afflicted. I think we can all agree with that, but it would take time, and I think it would be better that a person should get treatment as a voluntary boarder than that he should get none at all; and, while the new institutions for which provision is made in the Local Government Act, 1929, are being set up, I think we should not put any Amendment into this Bill which will prevent those people from getting treatment in the meantime.
I must say that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), that it may be necessary in Clause 1 to provide more safeguards in regard to children under 16. We hear a great deal about malevolent relations. I believe that that danger is exaggerated, but it does seem to me that, if it were possible to have a malevolent relation, it would be in regard to a child under 16, and I think that in Committee we ought to see that a further safeguard is put in in that regard. There is a point that I should like to raise with regard to Clause 5. I am not sure that the definition of the term "non-volitional" will be really satisfactory. I am not a lawyer or a doctor, but it strikes me that that definition is either too wide or too narrow, and I hope we shall have the advice of all the legal experts in the House in trying to get a better definition of the term, "non-volitional," because I think that that term is causing a good deal of anxiety in the country at the present moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, speaking of local authorities, said that it was going rather far to compel them to set up institutions and undertake the care of these patients. He thought that it would be too onerous for them. I understood however, that the local authorities already had that obligation under the Local Government Act of last year. Section 104 of that Act says that the Minister may reduce the grant payable if he is not satisfied that
a local authority is carrying out its work satisfactorily in regard to various services, and particularly in regard to public health; while Section 134 of the Act defines public health services as follows:
' Public health services' includes services relating to maternity and child welfare, lunacy and mental deficiency …
I think, therefore, that local authorities already have that obligation, but at the same time there is no doubt that the present Measure, while extending the services with regard to lunacy, provides for what may he called new services—services for the after-care of the patient, and so on; and, if that be so, I should imagine that the case of the London County Council, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich would be covered by Section 135 of the Act, which says:
It is hereby declared that it is the intention of this Act that, in the event of material additional expenditure being imposed on any class of local authorities by reason of the institution of a new public health or other service after the commencement of this Act, provision should be made for increased contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament.
It seems to me that the London County Council and, perhaps, the Gloucestershire County Council, if they want to, will be entitled to get more money from the Exchequer in relation to this new service.
7.0 p.m.
I would also like to praise the facilities for the treatment of after-care patients. That is one of the most important provisions in this Bill and the Royal Commission were very emphatic on this subject. They said that a patient often recovers, but it is very difficult to get him good after-care treatment. He may, of course, have a good home to go to, but, if he is a pauper, he probably has not. There is an association, the After-care Association, which deals with these people and has done very good work for many years. They are limited by funds and do most of their work round London. Some of the provinces are neglected not through any fault of the Association, but because they are limited by funds. Under this Rill the local authorities will be able to contribute to voluntary associations like the After-care Association. In the long run, that will do more to help a permanent cure than anything that has been done for years. While we shall be
eager to put in Amendments which will strengthen this Bill in the direction the House desires, that is, to get as much treatment as is possible while at the same time having regard to the liberty of the subject, we heartily congratulate the Government on having introduced this Bill. As a matter of fact, before I had finished reading it, I was at one time almost doubtful about the paternity of the Measure.

Mr. LOGAN: It gives me great pleasure, as one who has had some experience of the Poor Law administration of the country, to support this Bill. The important problem which we are discussing to-day is one of the most difficult problems that has confronted the Poor Law administrations of the country, especially with regard to the mental cases which we are now discussing. This is really a classic occasion. We are to-day providing for cases which before were certifiable and had, of necessity, to go in as certifiable cases because there was then no other way of dealing with them. The result was that people really did become insane because of that classification. As most people with any knowledge of institutions know, like brings about like. I have seen sent to an institution for a period patients who got into a mental condition they would never have reached if they had been kept at home and which they reached because of their detention in a lunatic asylum. It has been said here to-day—and it is a fact—that many who are insane think that the visiting justices are insane, and I have seen a patient point to the patient next door and say that he was "dotty." It is very hard to draw the line between those who are insane and those who are not. The remark of the last hon. Member that there was good in all parties led me to believe that there was a sound mind in a sound body on the other side of the House. [Interruption.] I am not dealing with this side; we are all sound here.
We are now approaching a great era in dealing with all these matters. The passing of the old boards of guardians and the coming in of the public assistance committees is bringing in a new trend of thought and a new system into the management of the affairs of this nation. It is necessary that, in this matter with which we are now dealing, the Minister should take into considera-
tion the question of segregation. It is utterly impossible to deal with mental cases, whether certifiable cases or cases for temporary treatment, unless you segregate them. Without segregation the classification will be useless. Those who are certified must, of course, get treatment like other cases, but I take it that the system we are now going to bring into operation is to deal with those cases of a temporary character that any mental men would certify as of a temporary character, or cases that need testing to see whether they really are mental cases needing treatment for many years. I am convinced from my observation that unless you segregate you are going to make insane those you are now dealing with. Anyone who has gone into the observation wards or the receiving rooms of our institutions knows that, when we bring a person in there and keep them for one, two or three days, cases that otherwise would have gone home have become insane owing to the cases they meet with inside. That cannot be disputed, and any Minister bringing in a Bill like this must be confronted with the difficulty of classification in our institutions. The same thing happens in the case of smallpox, where a doctor certifies a case as smallpox and it is then isolated and the smallpox does not develop but is contracted because the man is put in with smallpox patients. On the other hand, cases have been sent in by a medical practitioner certified as smallpox which those who received them could see were not smallpox and, as they were detained as isolated cases, the smallpox did not develop. It is the same in these mental cases.
I am convinced that this Bill will open a new era in thousands of homes where cases of temporary aberration occur, but it raises the difficulty and the purpose of classification. I want to see—and both sides of the House are willing—a business proposition carried out on proper lines of demarcation, so that the physically unfit shall be kept separate from the mental cases, and so that those mental cases of only a temporary character shall be segregated. The question of stigma is an important matter. The very fact of having a father, a mother, a sister, or a brother classified as mental is, even among our schoolchildren, a strong taboo. I have seen
cases in congested areas where families, owing to the mad system of classification have been ruined because; of a case of temporary insanity and where children, even though they have been able to win a scholarship, have not been able to go on, simply because they have been marked out as "luney," like the afflicted father or mother. Those are things which are a great burden in our industrial life, and for that reason I do not want a hotch-potch kind of a Bill, but a Bill incorporating those ideas of reform which can be borne out by anyone with any knowledge of institutional treatment.
There are two things I wish to point out, after 10 years' experience of administration on one of the biggest boards in the country. I am convinced that classification and segregation are absolutely essential. I am prepared to admit that outdoor treatment is essential, and I am not concerned with the Board of Control or with financial obligations, because they have to be met one way or another. I am convinced that there is another series of patients that must be brought to the notice of the Minister. Under the Lunacy Law at present, if one's father goes inside an institution on account of old age, there is no classification for cases of senile decay. These cases of old age are treated as though they were lunatics. I would like to see in this Bill some provision made so that there may be some classification of these senile cases in addition to provision for some classification of cases of a temporary character which are not chronic. We want to deal with these cases so that we can bring back to the children the parent who, under a sane system of administration, can be brought back to them again as a good citizen in the life of the nation.

Mr. RICHARD RUSSELL: I would like to add to the congratulations from all parts of the House to the Minister for the good parts of this Bill. There is no doubt that the original purpose of the Bill, the treatment of voluntary cases, is a very beneficent purpose indeed, and everybody in the House will give to it all the sympathy, all the co-operation and all the help that can possibly be expected. The only point I want to make to-night is that, joined with that portion of this Bill, there is another portion which has raised, and which will continue to
raise, considerable controversy. The Minister spoke of having co-operation and getting through this Bill with a united consensus of opinion in the House, and I hope that is going to happen on the present occasion. I cannot, however, allow that to go without making the suggestion that, when we get into Committee on the Bill, the whole question of the relationship between the local authorities and the Board of Control will come under very serious consideration and will need some amount of remodelling. There is no doubt that, perhaps, the greatest work done in this country in our national life during the past 50 years has been done by local authorities. There has been a tendency during recent years to depreciate again and again in this House the work of local authorities.
Take the present subject. The local authorities have built up these great institutions, doing magnificent work. The very touch of the local authorities upon these cases is an element of helpfulness, and, whether the local authorities are right or wrong in their attitude towards the Bill, there is no doubt that they are very much alarmed at the powers that are being given to the Board of Control in regard to them. There is no doubt, also, that considerably increased expenditure is going to be put on them. If this Bill is to be a success, a number of those who to-day go in as certified patients will in the future go in at an earlier stage. In addition to that, there will be a large number of other cases which do not come under treatment earlier but which we want to get under treatment, and this will lead to considerable expenditure on the part of local authorities. We see no provision here for that. The position, therefore, is more control of local authorities and more cost to local authorities, but no further assistance to them, so far as we can see, in the carrying out of this work. That is a position that needs to be faced when we get into Committee. We ought not to depreciate our local government. As much co-operation as you like, but a little less of this spirit of control. There is a danger that the very name "public control" is likely to lead us somewhat astray. After all, it is not a Board of Control of local authorities but a Board of Control set up to deal with patients. I hope when we get in Committee this point will be seriously faced by the Minister, and faced in a sym-
pathetic spirit, so that we shall be able to remove the apprehensions that exist among local authorities ecerywhere.

Dr. FORGAN: I gladly join in the chorus of praise of the Bill, though I shall have to qualify it to some extent by calling attention to one or two defects. I should like to say of what great benefit institutional treatment for voluntary boarders and the possibility of after-care treatment can be. The Bill does not apply to Scotland, for the very good reason that we have our separate Board of Control, and the Noble Lord, who was a member of the Royal Commission, said the practice in Scotland showed an enormous advance upon that in England. In Scotland, those suffering from mental disorder are treated in a very flexible way, with enormously good results from the point of view of the health of the patient. The percentage of the population certified as insane is almost 20 lower than in England, and it seems to me that the different method of treatment may to some extent be responsible for that. I had brought to my notice some time ago the case of a young man who had been unemployed for a considerable time, and fear of future unemployment became such an obsession that finally he had to be admitted to a Poor Law institution where, after same months of treatment, not as a certified lunatic but as a voluntary boarder, he was restored to normal mental health and discharged, and then he had to face again the very trouble that had driven him into the mental institution, the fear of continued unemployment. It was only necessary to draw the attention of the local authority to the fact that he was up against the thing that had practically made him insane before, for the parish council to provide him with work. By means, first of all, of treatment as a voluntary boarder and afterwards by after-care he was saved from what certainly would have been permanent insanity. I commend to the notice of the House the practice in Scotland, which apparently is considerably in advance of that in the South.
As regards the defects of the Bill, temporary patients are, in the opinion of those who have framed the Measure, likely to be treated in the existing Poor Law institutions, and there are very many members of the public who will think that there is very little difference
between a declaration signed by two doctors and certification, if the patient is then removed to an asylum. That emphasises the paramount importance of setting up other institutions for the treatment of early cases. But the most important defect is the very serious additional financial burdens which will be placed upon local authorities. Temporary patients are an entirely new class of patient. Fresh accommodation will be required for them, and fresh expense will be incurred by the authorities, and, if our method of allowing non-volitional cases to remain for six months without certification is going to be effective at all, it will mean for some years an increase in the number of persons who will receive treatment; and new accommodation will be required if the authorities are to put into effect the permissive powers which this Bill gives them.
The Royal Commission declared that the Exchequer contributions to local authorities for work of this sort in the past were wholly inadequate, and they themselves were of opinion that an ad hoc grant was necessary if local authorities were to undertake the new duties. Local authorities are now faced with additional work, with their resources for further rating depleted by the De-rating Act of the last Government. I am afraid, if this Sub-section is to remain permissive, the great majority of the local authorities will be unable financially to undertake any of this work at all. The Bill, as it stands now, is not going to provide early treatment except for those who are able to pay for it. For nearly a century the history of lunacy reform has been a history of good intentions. In 1881, the Commissioners reported that for 40 years their efforts had been directed towards obtaining early treatment. That was 49 years ago, so that for almost 90 years the Commissioners have been attempting to obtain early treatment. The fact that early treatment is the keynote of this Bill is sufficient condemnation of the effects that have been made in the past. I hope the Bill will have a unanimous Second Beading and that at a later stage it will be so amended as to make it really capable of bringing about the praiseworthy reforms for which it has been designed.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I rise to say a few words on the Bill as on (c) who has had a good deal of experience of Lunacy Law. On the whole, it is extremely good, and I congratulate the Minister on introducing such a good Measure. Clauses 1 to 4 are excellent, but I am afraid I must say something about Clause 5. I have an old fashioned dislike to doing away with the certificate of the magistrate. That was fought for for a long time, and it has been on the whole a great safeguard. Under this Bill, people can be put away in an asylum or a home for a whole year without any legal certificate, and my own feeling is that that is a mistake. I do not see the reason for it. I think the idea that certification of itself is a stigma is a misconception. The actual fact that the magistrate has signed something which the public do not know anything whatever about cannot possibly hurt anyone. It is the fact that they are put into an asylum which attracts public attention and causes scandal and worry and trouble. Moreover, from the point of view of the persons themselves, certification is a protection. In the first place, it protects the patient; in the second, it protects the doctors, and, in the third. it protects the family.
The expression "incapable of volition" will have to be explained. I particularly think it is unfortunate that this Clause should apply to people incapable of volition. I can quite understand people being put away who have power to express themselves whether they want to go in or whether they do not want to go, but that people should be put away without a certificate who are not able to express their opinion really seems to me to be wrong. Those are the people who ought particularly to be protected. The powers given to the Board of Control are very large indeed, and I was very interested to hear the criticism from the benches opposite that it ought to be brought into the open. I quite agree with that, and I think it is very essential that the members should be known and that the constitution and powers of the Board should be very much discussed. This is a very good instance of delegated powers which an analogous Committee-is considering. No doubt it will come into the purview of that Committee later on. It occurs to me that there ought to be some mode of appeal from the Board
of Control. They have very large, autocratic powers, and some machinery ought to be set up if we are going to have this sort of administrative law, which is so very common on the Continent. We ought to have some mode of appeal, which has been so fully discussed in a great many textbooks on the subject. Subject to these observations, I give the Bill my support.

Mr. J. JONES: For 26 years, I have been connected with a mental institution in the East End of London, where they have all the problems to face that we have been discussing in this Debate. Probably some hon. Members imagine that that is a proper committee for me to be on. I want the House to realise that in this Bill no consideration whatever is given to those who are the most helpless victims of the present system. Once sentenced to death so far as the ordinary mental institution is concerned, there is no hope of reprieve. One is under the control of the Board of Control—an unapproachable body. You can write letters, you can send appeals, but you get the old stereotyped reply every time.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and Private Business having been set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FERRY COMPANY (BRIDGE) BILL (Certified Bill.) (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. GLASSEY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I feel that I really ought to apologise to the House for taking up its time in the discussion of a Private Bill, but I can honestly claim that, in so doing, I speak in the name of the general public in opposing the proposals of this Bill.
Disinterested public opinion speaks with one united voice with regard to the proposals of the Bill, and that voice is an uncompromising opposition to its proposals. I have received innumerable communications by post, by telegraph, and by telephone. Scores of people have spoken to me personally. I have received resolutions from public bodies. I have received petitions from local authorities, and there reached me the other day a public petition which, unfortunately, was out of order and could not be presented to this House, but that petition was signed in all good faith by the petitioners and contained in all nearly 2,000 names. Among all these communications, whether written or spoken, there was not one single word expressed in favour of the scheme. There has been considerable correspondence in the "Times" with regard to the proposals. Out of some 20 letters which have appeared only four were in favour of the scheme. When I tell the House that two of those were written by the company promoting the Bill, another one by a shareholder in that company, and another one by a firm of estate agents, it will be able to place its own estimate on their value.
In addition to all these, petitions have been presented against this Bill by all the local authorities: petitions by the Dorset County Council, by the Poole Borough Council, by the Poole Harbour Board Commissioners, by the ferrymen who have been plying there for a very large number of years and who, if this Bill were passed, would lose entirely their means of livelihood, and by several other bodies, and by several private individuals. I have received resolutions against the Bill from the local branch of the National Citizens Union, from the Dorset Law Association, and from the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, while the Council for the Preservation of Rural England is strongly opposed to the scheme. Ratepayers have petitioned their borough councils to oppose it, and the public petition to which I have already referred was signed by all sorts and conditions of people.
It has been suggested that it is simply the opposition raised by a few idle rich. I would like to tell the House that these people have not been as idle as the promoters of the Bill would have liked them
to be, nor are they as rich as they themselves would like to be. But strong as this opposition may appear it would have been stronger but for the skilful secrecy which has been observed in the promotion of the Bill. With regard to that matter, may I mention one fact. The Parliamentary notices with reference to this Bill were not inserted in the local Press, but in a small paper with a very small circulation published at Weymouth, and with virtually no circulation whatever east of Dorchester. It was only by a matter of chance that any of the local residents happened to see the Parliamentary notices at all. That is typical, and I say this advisedly, of the unremitting spirit of wangle and subterfuge which has characterised the operations of this company ever since they came upon the scene. It is just as well to know the manner of men with whom one is dealing. Ever since they came upon the scene there has been trouble. They have tried to secure the ferries, and dispossess the ferrymen of their rights. They have pursued these men with costly litigation, and now an appeal has been lodged and the case is waiting for trial in another place. I want the House to observe that, if this Bill is passed, that appeal will be unnecessary, because this Bill abolishes the ferrymen altogether. I have tried to indicate something of the nature of the opposition. May I pass on to enlighten the House as to what is exactly proposed and describe in a few words the scene of the operations and to enumerate the points of the objection?

Mr. WALLHEAD: What is the name of the promoters?

Mr. GLASSEY: The promoters are the Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Company.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Who are they?

Mr. GLASSEY: I am going to say a little about that, because the title of the company and of the Bill itself is a misnomer. The bridge which is proposed is neither in Bournemouth nor in Swanage. I know that there are a great many people who come to Bournemouth and spend their time in Poole and go away and tell the world what a wonderful place Bournemouth is. I am not denying the wonders of Bournemouth, but I am venturing
to stand up a little for the beauties and rights of Poole. This bridge is to be built in Poole, and then fore you find this strong opposition from all the local authorities in Poole, and fro m the Dorset County Council. I want to mention this in order to make it clear to the House as to where the bridge is to be built.
May I ask the House to accompany me in thought—I cannot do more than that—to the scene of the operations, and that is to Poole Harbour, one of the most beautiful sheets of water in the country, a magnificent land-locked harbour dotted with islands of infinite variety and suggesting wonderful romance. It is fringed by a shore unique for the most part in its unspoilt beauty. It is a favourite rendezvous for yachts, and it is the scene of a brisk coast-wise and Continental trade. This landlocked harbour is approached by a narrow channel some 600 feet wide. That is the only entrance to the harbour. It is important to know that, because it is across that narrow entrance that this company propose to throw this hideous monster of steel and concrete. At the far end of the harbour is Poole Quay. I want to mention that fact, because one correspondent seems quite unable to differentiate in his mind between "Quay" and "Harbour," in describing the quay, which nobody claims as being beautiful, though it is rich in interest, and, if I may use the word again, romance, with bold buccaneers and stealthy smugglers contributing to its interest. The quay may not be a place of beauty, but the harbour most decidedly is. That quay is the scene of busy activity, for I am very glad to say that, perhaps differing from other ports, the trade of Poole has shown a marked increase during the last year. Across that bottle-neck of the harbour some 600 feet wide, which is bordered on the east by a narrow spit of sand, known as the sandbank, well developed—some people say a little over-developed—and on the western side by low-lying ground with sandy beach and dunes, with a stretch of marshland where wild fowl breed, and beyond that heathland rising in its furtherest extreme to the glorious heights of the Purbeck Hills, there is a chain ferry operated by this same company. It is proposed to substitute for that chain ferry this steel bridge at a cost of
£200,000 to the hindrance of shipping and to the disfigurement of the landscape.
As to what manner of bridge is suggested, I am not going into technical details, and I am not going to give a long list of measurements. I want you to remember that the entrance to that harbour is not guarded by beetling cliffs across which a suspension bridge could be thrown of the nature of Clifton Suspension Bridge or the Menai Suspension Bridge. There is nothing of that kind. Those who build this bridge have to build their own cliffs, and in order that shipping may pass under it, this bridge is to be built at a height of 120 feet above high-water level. I want hon. Members to imagine what a bridge of that height in a low-lying land is going to look like as the forefront of a glorious landscape at the entrance to this wonderful harbour. To reach that height from the land side, massive sleeves have to be constructed. On the sandbank side, property has to be demolished and a steel, concrete corkscrew sort of erection is to be raised, carrying vehicles to this height of the bridge. On the other side, a long sleeve of some 170 feet in length is to be constructed, leading vehicles again to the main height of the bridge. It is to be a fixed steel cantilever bridge at a height of 120 feet above high-water mark.
It is not easy to find words to describe the hideousness of that erection on a spot famed for its beauty and to which people come for the sake of its beauty alone. Destroy the beauty, and people will no longer desire to visit this place. We object to the bridge on aesthetic grounds. I know that there are a number of people who think that everything must be utilitarian and that no landscape is sufficiently beautiful to exclude such monsters as this bridge, but I would remind the House that nothing is beautiful that is not also useful, and that nothing is useful that is not also beautiful. People go to this place because it is different from anywhere else. There is talk about development and about covering these glorious heathlands and these magnificent Purback hills with bungalows. That itself would be a crime. Is it not possible for man to regard any glorious scenery, any beautiful landscape, without wanting to disfigure it with the depredations of the jerry builder?
We oppose this bridge because it is not needed. It is not a vital connecting link of any great main road. The road that runs there is no great arterial road, carrying trade from east to west or from west to east. It is not that the district beyond is inaccessible. There are roads in plenty, roads of beauty, roads of good surface interesting roads. The volume of trade traffic that passes that way is trifling and need not be considered. Heavy traffic passes round by other roads for the simple reason that a heavy toll is charged to all using the present ferry, and that some toll is to be continued for the using of the bridge. As an example of the toll that is charged, I would point out that a motor car with three persons has to pay a toll of 4s. 3d. return, while a char-a-banc with not more than 15 seats pays 7s. return, and with more than 15 seats 8s. 9d. return. Is it any wonder that these pleasure vehicles, which might save a little time by going that way, prefer to go a little further round and save a considerable sum of money? The bridge is not needed, because there are other roads. It is not needed for a great pleasure route, because Sandbanks has been developed for health purposes and not for the purposes of heavy traffic.
We oppose the bridge because it would hinder shipping. I am not an expert in regard to shipping, but I have consulted experts and they assure me that yachts, especially when coming out of the narrow entrance such as exists in Poole Harbour, with a strong current flowing, need all the room they can possibly get to make the journey in safety. If you erect massive piers, such as must be erected to support this bridge, you are bound to cause erosion somewhere else, and destroy the foreshore in another place. The bridge will undoubtedly hinder shipping, and Poole depends to a very large extent and to an increasing extent on its seaborne traffic. We object to the bridge because it would depreciate the value of property that is already developed. There is talk of developing property, but what sense is there in developing property at the expense of other property? I am not given to defending vehemently the rights of private individuals of the idle rich type, such as have been mentioned, but surely when a man has developed his property for the peculiar reasons of the view and the
unique nature of the situation, he has some right to be regarded in this respect.
There is a large hotel situated at the end of the Peninsula. What is likely to be the facts of that hotel, with this massive bridge built almost outside its bedroom windows. There is Brownsea Island, the habitation of which goes back to time immemorial, with a fine estate there employing a large number of people. I have received a wire from the owner of that property to say that if this great ugly monster is erected, the whole charm of the situation will have vanished and she will shut up shop and clear out. It is not so much the fact of the owner going but the fact that the owner going means that the employment of the people on the island goes. We object to the bridge because it would ruin the pleasure ground of the people. There is a glorious beach on the other side, along which one can ramble for miles. These sand dunes have given infinite delight to the people of the neighbourhood, and the erection of a bridge there, abutting on this pleasure ground, would spell ruin to the happiness of these people.
We object to the Bill also because we are assured on expert advice that it cannot be built for the price that is named. What we have in mind is the feeling that we do not want to see materials dumped down on this beauty spot, the construction of the bridge begun and then some unforeseen difficulty arising, as well it may in such an operation, and the whole thing abandoned—a hideous scar left, and no one a whit the better but everyone a great deal the worse for the experiment. We object to the bridge because it robs the ferrymen of their livelihood. These ferrymen employ a considerable number of hands. They have served the public and the public are grateful to them for their services. Strong public opinion has been aroused over the persecution of these ferrymen, and for the sake of the ferrymen we object to the erection of the bridge. We object to it because of the heavy toll to be imposed upon all using the bridge. We object to it because we can see un-safety in the using of it. I am not suggesting that the bridge may itself fall down, although public opinion is so strong that they would gladly place the promoting company and the shareholders
on the bridge, and then watch it meet the fate of the Bridge of San Luis Rey. Imagine a bridge of that height, with a gale blowing. What is the crossing of that bridge going to be like in those circumstances? I have heard it said by one resident that he would not send his omnibuses over it in a gale of wind such as is often experienced at Sandbanks.
We have been told that this scheme is a means of relieving unemployment. No one questions for one moment that in the erection of the bridge a large number of men would be engaged, both in the manufacture of the steel and in the erection of the bridge, but these men might be employed still longer if after the bridge had been built they were Kept there to pull it down again. The latter operation would be far more useful than the first. One welcomes every rational scheme to relieve unemployment, and one would fight hard to see such schemes put into operation, but there is a price that is too high to be paid even for the relief of unemployment, and that is to put the unemployed to work on schemes of madness and folly for things that are not needed and that would, by the very carrying out of such schemes, create unemployment of another type. If you hinder shipping, you create unemployment. If you abolish the ferrymen, you create unemployment. If you make Sandbanks too hideous for residential purposes, you create empty houses and you empty the hotel, where waiters and other servants are engaged. You rob the traders of Poole of large custom. All these things would create unemployment which would be more lasting unemployment than the employment that would be created by the building of the bridge.
We have been told in correspondence in the newspapers in regard to the bridge that large development of land is to follow in its train. Where is this development to take place, when is it to take place, and by whom? That development could already proceed if the owner gave consent. The bridge is not necessary to create any development. That development is held up for entirely different purposes. The owner refuses sanction. If land is to be developed, then against what is the owner of that property petitioning? One of the petitions against the Bill is presented by him. This statement about developing land is only a ruse to win the sympathy
of those who have hitherto opposed the Bill. The company cannot proceed to any development of land; they claim no such thing for the Bill, and they cannot do it themselves. We are told in the Preamble of the Bill:
Whereas the construction of the bridge is calculated to promote employment and an application has been made to the Treasury under the provisions of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, for a grant of money or guarantee of interest on moneys to be raised and applied for the purposes of the capital expenditure to be incurred under this Act.
Public money is to be applied for. What welcome that application will receive, I do not know and I cannot say, but I want the House to observe that public money is to be applied for by this company to impose this stranglehold on the sea route of Poole; public money to be granted to this company to impose a tax and a toll upon the public using that same bridge. I want, in conclusion, to appeal to the House in the names of those bands of happy children who, in the summer time, frequent these shores in large numbers. This company claims to be a benefactor to the people, but I want to say to the House that it is not-acting as a benefactor but as a robber of their rights, privileges and pleasures. I want to appeal to the House in the names of those who, tired of bricks and mortar and modern developments, tramp these heathlands and seek the quiet of these sequestered places and villages of the Purbecks, and find health and refreshment for their bodies. I appeal to the House in the names of the fishermen of Poole, who in the summer time man the yachts that frequent the harbour. I appeal in the names of the traders of the town and in the names of all lovers of nature, that the House should reject this Bill and save this piece of England, this lovely land for the people who have found their delight in it.

Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
8.0 p.m.
I do so in a completely disinterested capacity, although my home happens to be upon the roundabout road to Swanage. I second the Amendment because I know that the vast majority of the residents, if not all of them, look upon this scheme with a great amount of disfavour and would wish the Bill to be rejected by the House. In this House, as in the country,
more and more people are now concerned to see that our rural amenities and the beauty of the countryside are not destroyed by unsightly structures. The bridge which is to be erected is to be 120 feet high, and the promoters are to be allowed to erect it another 20 feet-higher if they wish. We are to have a bridge of 140 feet high in this completely beautiful spot; that is 40 feet higher than the cliffs at Bournemouth, and those who know this part of the world will have some idea what it is going to look like.
The Sandbanks area has been scheduled under the town planning scheme of Poole, but there are provisions in this Bill which allow the promoters to do things which are contrary to the town planning scheme of the authority. They can do anything they like with any material they get from the foundations of this bridge. This is a high class residential area, and on the opposite side of the water there is this beautiful spot which is enjoyed by every kind of person whether rich or poor. They can go across freely and at will and enjoy themselves on the opposite shore of the harbour. This bridge is going to turn a place which has been a restful resort for a large number of people into a big traffic road for the benefit of people who can afford to go by car or charabanc; it will spoil this delightful spot. I submit that this House should not allow this big traffic road to be made through this beautiful area.
Clause 31 gives a. complete ferry monopoly right to the company promoting the Bill. They thought they had secured this right in their Act of 1923, when they got powers to run a ferry. Quite a number of small men for years have ferried people across to Shell Bay on the opposite side to Sandbanks, and built up a business employing quite a number of men. They started with ordinary rowing boats but now they have a number of motor boats in which people can go cheaply from one side of the harbour to the other. In 1927 this company, who thought they had secured complete monopoly rights brought an action against a boatman called Harvey to restrain him from exercising rights which he had exercised for years past. They failed before the court of first instance. It was taken to the Court of Appeal, and they failed again; and now an appeal is pending by this rich
company against the poor man to the highest tribunal in this land. If the House passes this Bill and it becomes law the effect of these decisions will be swept away and these small men will be deprived entirely of their livelihood. The men they employ will also be deprived of their livelihood.
What happened next in the legal line? Next thing they more or less forced the owner to take down a landing stage so that they could not run people across to any kind of landing stage, and, although in the Act of 1923 the rights of the neighbourhood in a right of way, which had always existed, were carefully preserved—the promoting company undertaking to preserve them—after the decision of the case they put up barbed wire to stop people getting back on to that right of way, and at the present moment there is a writ issued against this company on behalf of the Poole Corporation to restrain them from infringing on a public right. These are the people who are asking this House by this Measure to completely annul these ferry rights and allow them to do what they like in this place. The case of the Poole Corporation against the company is being held up until the fate of this Measure is scaled. In my view, they are not the sort of people who should be entrusted by this House with the vast powers they are asking in this Bill.
Then with regard to shipping. From almost time immemorial Poole has been a great shipping port. Indeed, in the days of the Armada it sent more ships to fight the Spanish invaders than any other small town, and for that reason the Mayor of Poole is an hereditary Admiral of the Fleet to this day. Shipping has always been one of the basic industries of Poole. To-day it consists of merchant shipping, which brings in timber and takes out clay and other commodities, and the yachting industry. The harbour itself is very difficult to get into when the tide is running strongly. If hon. Members walked around the harbour and around every little bay in it they would cover 96 miles. That will give them some idea of its size. The tide runs very strongly through the somewhat narrow channel, and it is proposed to put piers in the middle of the channel to support and carry this bridge. The Poole Harbour
Commissioners are of the opinion that these piers will substantially affect shipping, and as Poole has four tides instead of two it means that practically the tide is always running fairly strong, either in or out. In the opinion of the Poole Harbour Commissioners these piers will affect the trade coming into the port, and they have now put forward a scheme themselves—how far it has gone I do not know but perhaps the Lord Privy Seal knows—of building an additional quay with better storage facilities and also for the reclamation of some six or seven acres of mud land at a cost of about £59,000.
In their view the proposals in this Bill will obstruct traffic and limit the size of the ships coming into the port, and for that reason I ask the House to reject a Bill which in any way hampers the old-established trade of one of the lesser ports, which still does a substantial amount of trade by sea. Then there is the yachting industry. A considerable amount of trade is carried on in the making and repair of yachts and in storing them during the winter months. Employment is also brought into Poole by the people who use it as a yachting centre. An ordinary small yacht, as every hon. Member knows, has to tack in or out of a harbour if the wind is in one direction or another, and this manœuvre is made much more difficult, as anybody who has handled a yacht will know, if you have to avoid piles and piers which have been struck in the fairway of the harbour. On that ground, I ask the House to consider very carefully before they give a Second Reading to the Bill.
I come to the construction of the bridge itself. The county council and all the local bodies consider that it is unnecessary, and I shall be interested to hear whether hon. Members opposite, who were so keen on granting additional powers to municipalities on Friday last, will now give support to this Bill and say that the municipalities who are strongly against this Bill are all wrong and that this private company, this creature of private enterprise, is the one which shall be supported in this matter. The next question is, for what purpose is this bridge to be made? It is merely to take motor tourist traffic. No commercial traffic of any sort is likely to use that road. I am wondering what
sort of line the Lord Privy Seal proposes to take regarding the proposal.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): If the hon. Member will stop, I will tell him.

Major LLEWELLIN: I would stop if I knew exactly what the right hon. Gentleman meant by his remark. The old road goes round some 25 miles, whereas this road will be 10 miles, from Bournemouth to Swanage. Why those particular places are chosen I do not know, because a large amount of traffic goes to Swanage from other places, and those who go to Bournemouth like to spend their time in that town, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for that constituency will agree. The railway goes on very much the same lines as the road. The making of this short cut, if it is to be of any use, will establish strong competition with the railway company, which at present has to compete on more or less equal terms only with the road traffic. The proposed road is a badly designed road and does not comply with the standard specification for main roads as laid down by the Ministry of Transport. The hon. Member who spoke last said something about the spiral approach. It will be rather like the towers down which children slide on carpets at local fairs. On a skiddy day cars and other vehicles using the road will get down that spiral in much the same way.
What is wanted, and what will meet all the requirements, is for the company controlling the ferry to provide more up-to-date boats and to make the crossing more speedy. That would provide just about as much employment as the making of the bridge. The House should realise that if the Bill is passed this bridge will be a toll bridge for all time, and, as toll bridges go, it will charge an excessive rate for any vehicles which may cross it. By the Act of 1923 the road on the other side was to be vested in the county council after a period of 65 years. There is no provision in this Bill for vesting this bridge in any authority at any date. Let me turn next to the question of unemployment. I understand that the Bill is being helped forward by the Government.

Mr. THOMAS: The Government have expressed no views on the subject, and
the hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to say that at all.

Major LLEWELLIN: I am sorry, and I withdraw the remark. I did not appreciate what position the right hon. Gentleman was going to take; I was going on the fact that the Bill was a certified Bill. A certain amount of work, of course, would be given in erecting the bridge and in providing the steel, and such work would be welcome. But there are other works in the district which might well be carried through and would be of great benefit. In the opinion of all the representative authorities in the area and of a vast number of people who have spoken about it, the bridge will be a complete eye-sore. It might be a failure, and then it would be left derelict, and would detract people from the district. The result of the building of the bridge would be to hinder the facilities of the port, to decrease employment in that way, and quite clearly it would take away the employment of a large number of people who now work either on the ferry or other boats that cut across that bit of water.

Mr. THOMAS: I do not wish to occupy more than a few moments, because a much more important Bill is waiting to be discussed. I have been in the House for more than 20 years, but I cannot remember such carefully prepared, magnificently delivered and sustained eloquence for such a lot of little causes. There seems to be considerable misunderstanding because of the certificate bearing my name. That certification is merely to show that work will be provided. It does not mean, and is never intended to mean, unless expressly stated, that the Government give any support. With regard to the application before the Committee, again we have no right in this House to prejudice any such application and, therefore, it is not for me to say anything on that side of the question. But as far as the Government's views are concerned, we offer no advice to the House. When there is a conflict between two interests, unless there is an overwhelming case for one against the other, it is the duty of the Government to remain neutral, and in this case we leave the matter entirely to the judgment of the House.
There is no element of doubt about the opposition to the Bill. There is no doubt about the tremendous feeling which has been aroused, and one advantage of this
Debate is that as a result of it I am quite sure the constituents of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill will feel a deep debt of gratitude to him for all time. When they see new faces coming to Dorset they will say, "That is the result of our Member's eloquence." I can understand, on the other hand, that those people who read the speech of the Seconder of the Motion for the rejection of the Bill will say to each other, "We did not know the real importance of Poole before. In fact, if the mayor is an admiral, we will try to do something to have him made a general as well." But I ask the House to keep clearly in mind the fact that this is not a big scheme; that it is certified merely on the ground that it does provide work, and that there is strong objection to it. I say nothing about the grant, because that would be unfair. The Committee would have to consider that on its merits if the Bill gets a Second Reading, but, as far as I am concerned, if the matter goes to a Division, I shall go with those who oppose the Bill.

Mr. ATKINSON: The House will remember that these private Bills, when given a Second Reading, go to a Committee whose business it is to inquire into questions of fact, such as have been raised this evening. Evidence is called upon them, and both sides have an opportunity of being heard before that Committee. I think the House will agree that in the case of this Bill no question of principle is involved. No question arises here of the kind which we usually discuss when a private Bill is objected to on Second Reading. All the objections which have been raised relate to questions of fact, which can be determined far better by a Committee than by this House. After all, the House can only act on ex parte statements without any knowledge as to how far those statements are justified. There has been a great deal of abuse of this company, but let us see what we know about it. This company received statutory powers in 1923 to construct a road from Bournemouth to Swanage, or rather to construct a considerable part of such a road. There was at that time a winding road 20 miles in length connecting these two places, whereas if a coast road were made crossing this harbour, it would shorten the
distance to 10 miles. This road was welcome at the time. At any rate, any opposition there was to it was not effective, and the road was made at great expense. I think some £100,000 was spent upon it.
The road is there; it has been a benefit to those using it and it has been very much more popular than anybody anticipated. In the last two years 500,000 people, and between 100,000 and 200,000 vehicles have used it. But when the vehicles and the people who have been invited to use this road, reach the water they find there is one single chain ferry boat to convey them across, and one may see as many as 30 or 40 cars hung up at this point and compelled to wait for considerable periods while this ferry boat plies slowly backwards and forwards taking about a dozen at a time. If a road is put down at this great expense, and the public are invited to use it, there is a duty to the public to make it effective for the whole of its length. People should not be compelled either to wait for an hour or two, or to go a long way round. So, the company which is being abused has been welcome there, at any rate up to now. They have done a work which has been of great value to Bournemouth and Swanage, and the use of the road is not limited to private motor cars. There is considerable commercial user of the road and one can imagine the loss of commercial time involved when vehicles conveying goods are delayed in the way I have described.
It has been suggested that the remedy is to supply more boats. One of the matters recited in the Preamble to the Bill is that there is no power to have a second ferry boat without the consent of the Poole Harbour Commissioners and that that consent was applied for and refused on the ground that a second vessel would be detrimental to the traffic in the harbour. Even the one ferry vessel has been found to interfere with the traffic in the harbour. Where you have a policy of that sort—I was going to say a dog in the manger policy of that sort—on the part of the Poole Harbour Commissioners, declining to have a second boat so that the ferry could be made more effective, I do not think that it rests with them to throw all this mud at the scheme of a bridge which would enable the harbour to be crossed without difficulty.
The next question—which is absolutely a question of fact—is that of hindrance to shipping. My information is that the suggestion that shipping or yachting will be interfered with is unfounded. I cannot tell the House which statement is true, and nobody else can. That is one of the matters which a Committee would inquire into, and on which after hearing evidence and cross-examining witnesses, it would give a decision, but it is quite impossible for the House to decide a question of that sort. All I can say is that I am informed by people who are in a position to know—they may be right or they may be wrong—that there would be no interference whatever with shipping or yachting. Let it be remembered that plans have to be passed by the Committee; the Committee have to be satisfied that the statements in the Preamble are well-founded, and one of those statements is that it is expedient that a bridge should be constructed. All these matters of expediency as I say, are inquired into and determined by the Committee on evidence. To show how far people who are prejudiced against this scheme will go, we have heard the expressions about a "hideous and monstrous iron and concrete structure." Nobody knows whether it will be hideous or not. Nobody can tell even whether it will be concrete. The plans will have to be submitted and passed and one of the matters taken into consideration by the Committee will be the attractiveness of the bridge itself.
To say that a bridge is necessarily an eyesore, is untrue, as anybody familiar with the Menai Straits will recognise at once. There is a beautiful bridge across those Straits, and I am sure we can all think of bridges which, so far from detracting from the beauty of the scenery, have added to it. Then we get this talk about the marvellous downs and sand dunes in this neighbourhood. But how is the scheme going to affect them? The road is already there and the bridge which is going to cross the harbour will not interfere with the beautiful country around, except that it will enable more people to enjoy it. If anything interfered with the sand dunes and the beauty of the scenery and the privacy of the neighbourhood, it would be the road itself, not the bridge. It was the road that opened up the neighbourhood. The
bridge will save people hanging about an hour or two before crossing the river. In bad weather you cannot use the ferry, and you have to give up all hope of crossing at all. That is surely an enormous inconvenience to people who are induced to go down this road supposing there is a way through, and then, when they get there, because there is half a gale blowing, find that the ferry boat cannot work. Again, the ferry boat does not work at night, and the provision is very inadequate altogether.
The next point that was made against the Bill was the interference with the ferrymen. New schemes always interfere with somebody, but you might just as well say that you must not put bridges across the Thames, because if they were not there you might have some ferrymen doing work of that kind. You cannot hold up a big scheme of this kind merely because it might interfere with a few fishermen who are conducting some ferry work there. After all, people who do not like the bridge and who do not like to pay the tolls can still use the ferries if they are cheaper, and can go round the old way at no charge to themselves. It is no use complaining of toils if it is purely optional whether you go that way or not. There is still the old 25-miles road, and there are still ferrymen to take them across more cheaply if they desire.
Here is a project which is certainly going to mean work for a number of unemployed. Some £200,000 has been spent upon it, and there is no objection in principle to it whatever. It is to make more effective a road upon which a great deal of money has already been spent, and which has become of very great utility to the public, but the great advantage of it is destroyed by this hold-up in the middle. The Harbour Commissioners have declined to let it be made more effective by agreeing to there being a second ferry boat across the water. All these objections which have been urged, the interference with shipping and the like, are purely questions of fact, with which this House cannot deal and for the purpose of dealing with which this Committee procedure of ours exists. They are matters of fact into which the Committee ought to inquire, and the House ought not to be asked to reject the scheme, which can only bring work to a number of unemployed and which will be
of great public utility, on the strength of a number of exaggerated allegations, the truth of which the House has no opportunity of testing. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. If its opponents are right, the Committee may throw out the Bill, and if they are wrong, and the weight of evidence is against them, the Bill will be passed, and it will only be because it is expedient that the scheme should be approved.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I want to explain why I am not going to cast a vote in regard to this Bill, which rather intimately affects the borough which I have the honour to represent. I understand that, if this bridge is built, it will take something off the property of a relative of mine, and, although that may not be a question of private interest, it might be one for partial affection, and I felt that, whether it is to the advantage or disadvantage of that relative, I should not cast my vote. It is only right, however, to say that there are persons in the locality of Bournemouth who hold the opposite view from that which has been put forward this evening against the Bill, and I hope for that reason that the House will allow the Bill to have a Second Reading, in order that these really debatable points may be considered in Committee, and I think we may trust a Committee of this House to come to a wise decision.

Mr. J. BAKER: I want to support the appeal that this Bill should have a Second Reading, so that the arguments which have been adduced can be examined. We have not time here and now to examine them. I could not help but think, when listening to the speech of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, how lacking in imagination I am. I have seen this area, and the things he described as lakes appeared to me to be mudbanks. We call thorn "slems" in the North of England. I do not know whether it gives hon. Members any idea of the sliminess of the foreshore of the area described in the beautiful language we have heard to-night, but that is what I felt about it when I saw that particular place. The hon. Member did right to appeal to the archaeological part of our nature, because when I saw that ferry I made an ejaculation which I think it would be out of order to repeat here. When I came South, I learned a new word, and that
was "amenities." I never met it in the North.
When I saw that this Bill was coming on, I thought, "Here is a chance of getting some work for steelworkers." The hon. Member with a brilliant imagination knows what will happen to his arguments if they are placed before a Committee, and, therefore, he is afraid of this Bill going before a Committee. Why should not this area be developed? Why should they have all these reservations to themselves down there? Why should a handful of people have all the beauty described by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, when we have men in the North who are wanting work and men in the South who are willing to provide that work? In war time these people of Poole were jolly glad to have the aid of our steelworkers to provide munitions to protect them and their harbour. Now our steelworkers are idle. There is 40 per cent. of our plant idle, and there are 20 per cent. of our men idle, and when there is work going to be provided for those men, the strongest argument that can be used to-night is "amenities." That was all right for 100 years ago, but it is not right now, and if this Bill goes to a Division to-night, I shall vote that the word "now" stand part of the Question.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: I do not wish to say more than a few words, which are rather provoked by the remarks of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker), who has just sat down. He said that amenities were all very well for 100 years ago, but that to-day it does not matter what the conditions are, but he will vote any amount of money for making steel—that if you have any purpose, good, bad, or indifferent, which will employ steel, you have to use it for the sake of diminishing unemployment. Nobody is more anxious than I am to diminish unemployment, but you have to consider all sides of every question. You cannot say that a proposition is necessarily good because it would employ many tons of steel. You have to consider the interests of the whole country and from every point of view. Among the greatest assets of this country are its amenities, its beauties—the beauties of its scenery, of its buildings, and of its sites. Here you have a small portion of this beautiful country of ours, which is very lovely indeed. The hon. Member for Bilston
asked what right a small number of people had to keep to themselves a beautiful piece of land? Why should it not be opened up, and built over with a bungaloid encrustment? The reason is that if you open up a piece of land for development, you necessarily, at the present day, spoil its beauty. Our builders have not discovered how to combine the building of a number of bungalows with the maintenance of beauty. We have only to travel through this country to find everywhere the same horrible outburst of bungaloid encrustments. If you find a beautiful piece of country which has been preserved for generations in the past, and which has been loved by the people of a district, not to say the people of the country, somebody comes along and brings a proposal to do something which is called opening up for development. It is because this bridge proposes to open up for development a beautiful piece of country in the neighbourhood of Studland, which will be ruined once the speculative builder has got hold of it, that I desire to oppose this Bill.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: I happened to be at Bournemouth this weekend, and I went to see this wonderful place. Poole Harbour is all right when the tide is in, but when the tide is out, there is a great deal of mud, and bad mud at that.

Sir M. CONWAY: It is very beautiful mud.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: I also went to Studland this morning, and I found five people in favour of the bridge to one against. What is behind all this? The reason for it is that the ferry is

not able to carry the traffic. That is all. If Poole Harbour would give an additional ferry, there would be no need to build the bridge. The bridge will be a considerable advantage to the locality. There is talk about Sandbanks being-desecrated by omnibuses coming along, but there is a service of three omnibuses going along there every hour. One omnibus goes over the ferry to Swanage, and I went over it this morning. On Saturday, I saw a load of wood come over the ferry. I hope hon. Gentlemen will realise that human beings are more important than even amenities. Why should not people be allowed to go over there? Hon. Members speak about the bridge stopping children getting across the Shell Bay. That is rubbish, for it will not affect them a little bit, because the road is there now, and where the ferry is the bridge is going to be built, so that there will be no alteration in that respect. I hope that the House will have some common sense, and say that a bridge can be beautiful. The Forth Bridge is an example, and another has been built over Sydney Harbour, the finest harbour in the world. A sum of £5,000,000 has been spent there on one of these steel erections, and yet hon. Members call it a monstrosity because a little place like Poole wants to get a bridge across their barbour. I hope that the House will come down to common sense. The special pleading for the amenities of the privileged classes has got to cease, and this bridge has got to be built.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 155.

Division No. 167.]
AYES.
[8.52 p.m.


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Daggar, George
Horrabin, J. F.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. K. (Stoke New'gton)


Arnott, John
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dickson, T.
Kinley, J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Dukes, C.
Knight, Holford


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, Charles
Lathan, G.


Bellamy, Albert
Ede, James Chuter
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Edmunds, J. E.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Logan, David Gilbert


Brothers, M.
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Longden, F.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lowth, Thomas


Burgess, F. G.
Gill, T. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McEntee, V. L.


Cameron, A. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Cape, Thomas
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
March, S.


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Marcus, M.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayes, John Henry
Marshall, Fred


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Colville, Major D. J.
Herriotts, J.
Middleton, G.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hopkin, Daniel
Mills, J. E.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Rowson, Guy
Vaughan, D. J.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Walker, J.


Mort, D. L.
Sanders, W. S.
Wallace, H. W.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Sawyer, G. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sherwood, G. H.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Palin, John Henry.
Shield, George William
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Palmer, E. T.
Shillaker, J. F.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shinwell, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Pole, Major D. G.
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Price, M. P.
Sinkinson, George
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wilson, R. J, (Jarrow)


Remer, John R.
Snell, Harry
Womersley, W. J.


Richards, R.
Sullivan, J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Ritson, J.
Thurtle, Ernest



Romeril, H. G.
Tillett, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Tinker, John Joseph
Sir William Lane Mitchell and Mr. Atkinson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gossling, A. G.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gould, F.
Muirhead, A. J.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Granville, E.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Albery, Irving James
Gray, Milner
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Owen, H. F, (Hereford)


Alpass, J. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Paling, Wilfrid


Ammon, Charles George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Penny, Sir George


Atholl, Duchess of
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Perry, S. F.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I of Thanet)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Potts, John S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Haycock, A. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsbotham, H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Benson, G.
Heneage, Lieut.-colonel Arthur P.
Richardson. Sir P W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Isaacs, George
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Blindell, James
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scurr, John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brooke, W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Kennedy, Thomas
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Caine, Derwent Hall.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smithers, Waldron


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville. D G. (Willesden, East)


Carver, Major W. H.
Lang. Gordon
Southby. Commander A. R. J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Stamford, Thomas W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, William G.
Lawrence, Susan
Strauss, G. R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Leach, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Dallas, George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Dalton, Hugh
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Longbottom, A. W.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
McElwee, A.
Townend, A. E.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
McKinlay, A.
Train, J.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Egan, w. H.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wallhead. Richard C.


Elmley, Viscount
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


England, Colonel A.
Marley, J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mathers, George
Watkins, F. C.


Ferguson, Sir John
Millar, J. D.
Wellock, Wilfred


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Milner, J.
Westwood, Joseph


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
White. H. G.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Morley, Ralph



Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Mr. Glassey and Major Llewellin.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Main Question put, and agreed to.

Question put, "That the words 'upon this day six months' be there added."

The House proceeded to a Division.

MR. GLASSBY and MAJOR LLEWELLIN were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Member willing to act as
Tellers for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, CENTRAL LONDON, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. (Certified Bill.) (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. CHARLETON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
9.0 p.m.
In rising to move the rejection of this Bill, I and those who are acting with me are taking advantage of the opportunities which Private Members have of ventilating grievances they may have against the promoters of a private Bill. Some time ago I could not have visualised myself moving the rejection of a railway Bill. It is not very long since hon. Members in this House and people elsewhere were accusing the members of the railway unions and the railway companies of having formed a syndicate, so well, were they working together. The matter which I wish to raise, and to which I take exception, is the way in which this company has broken away from a position which the railway union occupied with all the other railways. The right which I seek to maintain is not only the right of any employé or officer of this company, or any other railway company, to belong to a trade union, but the greater right that, when a man by good honest work, by well-known skill, has made himself so competent that his employer offers him promotion, it should not be a condition of taking that promotion that he should leave the union to which he may have belonged. Only to-day in interviewing, as I have done, very many men on the
London Electric Railway, I interviewed a man who has had 35 years' service, and he belongs to my union. This man stands pretty well up for promotion, but, if he accepts promotion to the higher grade, he will have to give up his 35 years' pension right. Mr. Webb stated, in his famous book on trade unionism, that to some members of trade unions their membership was akin to religion. The men in my union have joined it, not for their own selfish interests, but for the general interest of the class to which they belong, and we feel that it is out of place, in the Twentieth Century, that this prohibition should be put upon men who have proved that they are praiseworthy, and capable by being offered promotion in this way.
What has the railway company to be afraid of? We are living in the Twentieth Century, and we have a Trade Disputes Act on the Statute Book. I understood when the late Government passed the Trade Disputes Act that for all time nothing wrong could be done by trade unions, and all would be well; and yet the railway combine is still hysterical, even with the Trade Disputes Act on the Statute Book. An hon. Member asked me whether this was not a question of strikes, but railwaymen hardly know the meaning of the word strike. Railways were inaugurated over 100 years ago, and during that time there have been only two national railway strikes. It is true that railwaymen did take part in the strike of 1926 which seems to be engraven on the hearts of hon. Members opposite. [Interruption.] Yes, we struck but the miners were locked out.
Some of my friends and myself met one of the promoters of the Bill, and we tried to get from him the reason why these men were not to be allowed to continue as members of trade unions after promotion, and he refused to give us any reason. We consider that, when a company comes up for assistance to enable them to get so many millions as they are asking for by this Bill, at least they ought to behave decently to everybody, and we ought to know their reasons for refusing these men their membership. The members of the Railway Union thought the question of membership was settled for all time. In the case of other railway companies you cannot go to an officer in any department who will not tell you that
they are doing very well with the trade unions, and they have no need to put a bar on anybody whom they employ.
We are told that this is a domestic matter, but I deny that the employers have any right to interfere at all with men joining lawful associations for a lawful purpose. I put a little note about this matter in our union paper; it caused a great deal of indignation among many members of the staff, and they all say how indignant they are that these men should be taken away and treated in the manner that I have stated. The men lower down on the staff are asking where is it all going to end. They say that the powers asked for under this Bill are only the thin end of the wedge, and they do not like it. It is not so much that these men are prevented from joining the union, but they have to leave it on promotion. We are told that you cannot have these supervisors taking up the same attitude in a trade union as the ordinary workers, but we do not ask for that, as all the railway unions have special branches for supervisors. We do not ask that the men should mix with the supervisors in any way, neither do we expect that the supervisors should take an active part in the work of the union so far as rectifying grievances are concerned; but we do say that the men who have spent their lifetime in the service of the company and who have been members of the union all the time should have the right to remain members of the union after promotion.
If the railway companies cannot trust the men who belong to the union, what trust can we put in the companies when the men are not protected by their union. These supervisors are having the protection which the union gives them taken away, and they stand absolutely alone. They have no one to speak for them, and no one to approach the railway companies on their behalf. A railway company which denies the men that right is not fit to be trusted with these powers. In 1924, in company with the Lord Privy Seal, I did a good deal to oil the passage of the London Traffic Bill, and I think some of my hon. Friends remember that Measure. What did my friends tell me? They said, You are making a mistake, and in the end the London traffic will be placed in the hands of a great
combine which will get its tentacles all round London, and every one will suffer." I am beginning to wonder whether I did not make a mistake in what I did with regard to the London Traffic Bill when it is proposed to give such powers to a combine. The little omnibus companies have been swallowed up by the big omni bus companies, and even the London County Council—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I think the hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Question before the Chair.

Mr. CHARLETON: I am going to quote an old Teutonic legend, familiar to anyone who knows anything about German mythology, which will illustrate my remarks. A king was presented with two large eggs, and he gave them to one of his officers to get hatched out. In due course two little lizard-like creatures appeared, with which the children played, but they grew and they required feeding, and the more they were fed the bigger they grew, until at last they began feeding on the people round about them, and in the end the hero had to come in and slay the dragons. I say that, in the way in which the supervisors are being treated on the London Electric, there is this tyranny creeping in which is illustrated by that old German legend, and we of the railway unions object to it. For that reason I move the rejection of the Bill.

Mr. LATHAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
In rising to address the House for the first time, I feel that, whatever my difficulties may be, and at the moment they seem to be very many, I shall receive the consideration which the House traditionally gives to one in a position such as I occupy to-night. Like the Mover of the Amendment, I could have desired to be associated with a happier subject, and I can assure those present in all quarters of the House that we have not taken this course with any desire to create unnecessary trouble. I know that the Lord Privy Seal, to whom this Amendment may constitute a difficulty, and those on the other side who support what appears to us to be the entirely unjustifiable action taken by the company, will at any rate give us that credit. Whatever my difficulties may be in associating myself with a proposal which appears to be in opposition to the
industry with which we are connected, I find at any rate some satisfaction in the belief that we are rising in defence of civic liberties and rights, to which I believe this House has never been indifferent; and I believe, also, that the House will testify its desire to protect those rights and liberties as strongly on this occasion as it has on others.
We are asked to give support to the Second Reading of this Bill. What does that involve? As I understand it, we are asked to give to a powerful combine further powers to extend its business, which, in the main, curiously enough, is that of providing transport facilities for the working people of London and the London suburbs. We are asked also to agree, and not for the first time, that, in addition to giving to this huge combine further powers, financial responsibility shall be accepted to a very substantial extent by the State, in order that its developments and the extension of its activities may fructify. With these general objects, in an ordinary way, I should find no difficulty in agreeing, because, whatever speculative or other views we may hold in regard to what is known as the London Underground Combine, I and a number of others who have known the combine at close quarters for a number of years, and who have differed from it, as we do to-day, in regard to some of its actions, will at least agree that the combine has performed striking work in connection with the organisation of transport arrangements in Greater London. We desire to see those developments, in the interest of the people of London, carried still further. We rise to-night, not with any wish to restrict the facilities desired in the north of London, where I happen to be living, or the extension of facilities in other parts, but we do feel that we are entitled to say that we should hesitate before giving power to a combine of the kind that this one has now become, when it is found that it is already exercising the powers that it has in a way which is detrimental and prejudicial to the civic rights of the men whom it employs.
The Mover of the Amendment has spoken of his experience in the trade union with which he has been associated for a number of years. I speak with a knowledge of the working of another
organisation, which stands in a somewhat different position in relation to this question. The question of the organisation along trade union lines of the salaried and supervisory grades on the railways has been before this House on more than one occasion. In 1907, 1909, 1913, and on other occasions, the House was asked to indicate its views upon attempts that were made by great railway undertakings in this country to deny to the salaried staffs the advantages in regard to combination which, as was admitted at that time, could not be withheld from other sections of the staff, and I am glad to be able to say that from all quarters of the House support was forthcoming for the demands on behalf of the salaried staffs that they should be allowed to organise themselves in the way in which their more fortunate brethren in the professions have organised themselves, without dividing lines and restrictions of the kind that the companies were seeking to establish.
It is true that for some years we were not able absolutely to secure that position, but ultimately, in the early postwar times, the attitude of the employers became different from that which they are taking up to-day in regard to trade union organisation. There was then more talk of co-operation, there were more invitations to the staffs of great undertakings than are forthcoming today, and there was a disposition more readily to agree that trade unionism was desirable than we find is the case to-day. In those days, the railway companies and the Government finally agreed to extend to the salaried staffs on the railways or, at any rate, not to combat any longer their claim to, the rights which other sections of the staff had been enabled to enjoy. I have here the record of the negotiations which took place at that time. As the result of representations which were made to the Government of 1918–19, a meeting was ultimately arranged between the representatives of the Railway Clerks' Association, the Government, and the railway authorities, and the record reads:
The Government is prepared to afford recognition to the Railway Clerks' Association, as representing station-masters, agents, and other employés in the supervisory grades, except those noted below.
I am going to refer to them in a moment. It goes on:
Provided the Association is willing to make arrangements for ensuring autonomy to the supervisory grades within the Association, which the Government consider necessary for the preservation of discipline and public safety.
In our case, as in the case of the National Union, to which the Mover has made reference:
It was agreed that in order to carry out the arrangements, station-masters, agents and supervisors should have special branches, with separate voting, hold separate conferences, and organise separate delegations … It was agreed, on behalf of the Association, that no attempt would be made to make membership of the Association compulsory, and there would be no exception taken to other Associations seeking to represent grades included within the Railway Clerks' Association.
So far as exceptions are concerned, I ask the House to note the deliberate attempt on the part of the London Underground Combine to extend the range of exceptions far beyond anything that was contemplated in the agreement made at that time. It was understood that this arrangement as far as exclusion or exception was concerned would only apply to offices where the general policy as to staff questions was decided, such as the general manager's own office, the secretary's office in so far as it deals with confidential matters, or the chief and personal clerks of chief officers. I ask the House to note that the London Underground Combine has gone far beyond anything that was at that time contemplated or, as the Mover of the Amendment stated, has been demanded by any-other railway company in the country. My own Association, with which I am proud to have been connected for a period of 25 years, has built up an organisation in which there are hundreds of men and women who occupy some of the most responsible positions in the railway service—station-masters in control at some of the largest stations in the country, goods agents who control the chief depots, clerks-in-charge and other men in the administrative offices of the companies, and supervisors of one kind or another.
We have never at any time—and we invite the railway company representatives to challenge or to contradict our statement—said or done anything other than to encourage those men to render the best service they possibly could in building up and carrying on the
undertakings with which they are connected. We have claimed on their behalf that, just as all the railway companies are members of the Railway Companies' Association and have representatives in this House, and work very closely and solidly together in questions affecting their interests, so we claim that the men in the service, of whatever grade or section they may be, shall have the same right legally and properly to act together in support of their interests. It may be argued that these agreements to which I have made reference are agreements which were made by the railway companies other than the London electrical undertakings, and, strictly speaking, that would be true, but it is also true that the London Electric Railway has adopted in every case the agreements which were made with the trunk-line undertakings, realising that the advantages in that direction would at least be mutual. I cannot help expressing some measure of amazement that at this time the London Underground companies should have taken up this attitude. I am reminded that a gentleman who now occupies a position of honour at the head of their affairs was, in the days to which I have referred, when this agreement was made, a Member of the Government of the day and was the representative who acted on behalf of the Government, signed the agreement on behalf of the Government and negotiated it with my colleagues and myself. He was Sir Albert Stanley, now Lord Ashfield, the head of the London Underground Combine and, apparently, responsible for this step.
I have no desire unnecessarily to occupy the time of the House, and I want only to dwell on one aspect of the case. I have shown how in this agreement we met the railway companies. We undertook on our part not to attempt to exercise any undue influence to compel men or women to come inside the union. We have loyally adhered to that arrangement. When we desire that arrangement to be modified we will go to the companies and propose it, and see what can be done in that direction; but, just as in that respect we have refrained from attempting to impose our will in regard to trade union membership upon the members of the staffs, so we deny the right of the railway companies to impose non-unionism, and we ask them
seriously to consider whether in their own interest they are doing the right thing in attempting a different course.
The House should understand that we have not come here and adopted this obstructionist policy, as it has been described in some quarters, without seeking very earnestly and sincerely to secure some adjustment of these questions by other and more pleasant means. We have been reproached because we have not used opportunities that, it is said, were open to us to bring these questions before the House in connection with other Bills. In that regard I have only to say that we have been discussing the matter, and have raised it in correspondence and in conversation. I am sorry to say that our approaches, especially in recent times, have not been received in the manner to which hitherto we have been accustomed. In a recent conversation with a leading officer of my association, a responsible official of the London Electric Company displayed some measure of satisfaction in the arrangements which have been made and, with a delicacy that I am sure the House will appreciate, said he had not only bought the men but that he had sterilised them. Those are harsh and undesirable words. It is, of course, for the London Electric Railway Company to say whether they think men who are sterilised are the best type of men to occupy positions as supervisors, but I beg leave to differ from that view altogether. They may, by force majeure, have imposed their will upon numbers of men and have bought them. Some of us can appreciate the temptation it is to a man to be offered, as some have been offered and have been given, £100, £150 and £160 increase in their pay if they accept these conditions, but I can assure the company they have not broken the manhood of their staffs, nor have they entirely smothered the feelings of revolt which have arisen because of this action of theirs.
Having said that, I would express the hope that even now it is not too late for them to adjust their position. We are not anxious on these benches to see anything happen which shall hamper or hinder the Lord Privy Seal in the very difficult work which he has undertaken. I only ask him to consider that the accident of circumstances has put him where he is instead of putting him in the posi-
tion that I occupy, because I think he can conceive without any difficulty—for we have worked together in negotiations of the character to which I have made reference—the possibility that he might have had to plead the cause that I am endeavouring to put before the House. I believe we are justified in drawing the attention of the House to these circumstances, and I hope the House will support the protest that we make from these benches.

Mr. THOMAS: My first duty is to tell the House that I think I am expressing their views when I say there never was a case more fairly, honestly and sincerely presented than that to which we have just listened from the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. The House will agree that, after the Seconder's maiden contribution, we shall all look forward to hearing him on many more occasions. The only thing in his speech as to which I had doubt was his reference to the accident that places me here and him there. I am wondering which is the victim. The House generally is in a difficulty, and every Member on this side is in a real difficulty in connection with this Bill. I put it to the House in all sincerity that never was a Minister put in a more difficult position than I am in at this moment. Twenty years ago, long before Lord Ashfield's time, I moved the rejection of one of this Company's Bills in order to secure recognition. The agreement which is under review now, and to which objection is taken, I made. It is true that I made it on behalf of my Union under circumstances that I deplored and never acquiesced in. I deplore them just as much as my hon. Friend. What are the facts, and what is the advice that I give to the House? On the one side, you have the case put up clearly and definitely that this is the Twentieth Century. The right of combination has been too long established to be denied at this period. Stripped of everything else, that is the case put forward by my hon. Friend.
The answer the company give is this: It is true that this arrangement existed up to 1926 but, following the 1926 strike—I am quoting their own words as given to me—they said, "We are never again going to be left in that position, and a certain portion of our supervisory staff must choose between their loyalty to the
union and their loyalty to us. Therefore, we impose this condition on one section of our staff." That is accurately stating both points of view. I hope, whatever the result of this Debate, it will not be assumed outside that the relationship between the great mass of the employés of this company, represented by many Members in the House and by a number of unions, outside this point is other than the very best. Neither the Mover nor the Seconder nor anyone else would desire that, as the result of this Debate, that relationship should be disturbed in the least. On the contrary, outside the point in dispute, every trade union leader knows that every phase of trade union principles is argued around the table with trade union representatives. I do not want, above everything else, that this Debate should in any way interfere, hamper, or make the relationship less cordial than it is at this moment.
If you take the advice that is now offered and vote against the Bill, the Company do not suffer. Let us keep that clearly in mind. The House must understand the peculiar circumstances. In the last Parliament, the London Traffic Bill passed every stage until it reached the other House. When it was assumed that it was going for the Royal Assent, it was discovered that, by a technical fluke, it had to come back to this House. In the interval, a General Election took place, and a large number of Members on this side of the House fought the election on that very Bill, among other things. When the new Government was formed the position was fairly put before the House and they rejected the Bill.
The rejection of the Bill created another difficulty. The combine had agreed to the extension, long overdue, of the Finsbury Park tube, an extension which ought to have been undertaken years ago, and which is more necessary to-day than ever, as well as other developments. On the rejection of the Bill, the Underground Company decided to take no further steps. Let us be fair and reasonable in understanding that that was the only position they could take up. Their own proposal had been rejected, there was no alternative proposal, and, so far as they were concerned, the matter was ended. The next stage was my own Development Bill. I called the trunk railways together,
explained the Bill to them, and asked them to co-operate, which they did. The Underground Company, for the reasons I have stated, were not invited. I then sent for Lord Ashfield and urged him to respond. He explained the difficulties, and in the biggest possible way said, "Very well. Whatever the difficulties of the past may have been, I will see if I can join in and help in this problem." The result was that, not these proposals for the extension from Finsbury Park alone, which involved only £2,500,000, but a big London Bill involving £12,000,000 of expenditure was put up to the Committee. Before a copper of that money could be spent Parliamentary sanction must be given.
I ask the House to balance this position. I have explained, I hope fairly, the trade union difficulties. I have endeavoured to show the House how every man on this side fought years ago for the very principle which is involved here. I also want the House to observe that the position and the trade of the country are very serious, and the unemployment figure which is seen going up from week to week is due to a far more fundamental cause than is generally appreciated. The increase to be announced the day after to-morrow will be 11,000. [Interruption.] I have to ascertain what are the causes and what are the facts. All the time I have to consider any temporary effort which this Government can make. £61,000,000 has been sanctioned entirely independent of this Bill, and I assert without fear of contradiction that not £2,000,000 of it has been spent up to this moment, because it is all awaiting the sanction of this House. I am only stating the facts. When balancing both these things, strongly as I may feel with my hon. Friends, and do feel—and no one is more entitled to feel that than the one who fought so hard for the very principles about which we are talking—and knowing perfectly well that if this Bill is rejected, not only these improvements cannot be proceeded with, but that this £12,000,000 expenditure could not be undertaken for the next few years, can you wonder why I drop down absolutely on this side and say that you must give this Bill a Second Reading?
I would say something else. I have already indicated the relationship between the company and the general
body of the staff. I was amazed to hear the reference to some official to the effect that he had bought and sterilised the men. Knowing Lord Ashfield as I have known him for all these years, negotiated with him as I have done on the occasion of every railway agreement, I cannot help but feel that I shall be expressing his views when I say that they are not his sentiments, and that he ought to be, and would be, the first to repudiate them.

Miss WILKINSON: Why does he not?

Mr. THOMAS: In any case, a profound mistake would be made if we allowed that side of it to warp our judgment. I am going to say to my hon. Friends that they have stated their case to the House. I feel that, apart from hon. Members on this side, who are unanimous about the principle, there must be many Members on the opposite side of the House profoundly impressed with the fair, clear way in which the case has been presented. I hope that the Debate will be read, as I am sure it will be read, by those concerned. I am going to ask my hon. Friends to withdraw their Amendment for this reason. First, it is the duty of every Member in the House, though feeling strongly on this point, to say to himself that he has got to choose between this terrible unemployment problem, towards the relief of which this will be a contribution, and the principle to which I have referred. That is one difficulty.
There is another difficulty. I do not want, when they are put in the position of having to make such a difficult choice as that, the verdict of the House of Commons to go against the principle involved. I hope, therefore, that they will be big enough, as I am sure they will, to withdraw their Amendment, and that the other side will be big enough to appreciate what they have done, and with a unanimous Second Reading I hope it may be possible for both interests to come together and arrive at a common understanding. I will leave no stone unturned to bring that about. I am sure that my advice is the best. I hope that there will be no further speeches on the lines of aggravating or of embittering the controversy. If my hon. Friend will follow my advice I, as I have said, will use my offices to try and find a settle-
ment, and I hope that it will mean, as a result of the Debate, that mutual understanding will be arrived at and that I may get a Bill for which I earnestly and sincerely plead in the interests of the unemployed.

Mr. J. WILSON: I have listened with intense interest to the statement in favour of the Bill which has been made by the Lord Privy Seal, but, in spite of his eloquent appeal, I have not the slightest hesitation in wholly and clearly associating myself with my colleagues who are moving the rejection of the Measure. At least as far as the opportunity for negotiations are concerned, there can be no complaints by the company, because in November last I first drew the attention of the company to the fact that this Bill would be blocked in its passage through this House, due to the unwarranted interference and the inroads they were making into the civil rights of the people whom they employed. So interested were they in this, and so seriously did they take the objection which we were making, that from November of last year until about three weeks ago, no representation at all was made by this company and no indication was given by anyone representing the company that they had any desire to enter either into consultation or into negotiation on a question of this character.
The objection to this Bill on first principles can very easily be defined. I do not know whether the Lord Privy Seal will have time to listen to the Debate, but I will say to him that the attitude which we are now taking is a perfectly-constitutional attitude, an attitude which he himself has taken and of which many of his successors have been guilty. I do not know whether when we go into the Division Lobby on this Bill, the Lord Privy Seal will be there prepared to give sanction to the railway company, and to vote for further public money being granted to a private company who impertinently in this twentieth century seek to interfere with the right of the people whom they employ to join the trade union. The spirit of the men and women who laid the foundation of this great movement still lives and shows itself on these benches. If the Lord Privy Seal, in these circumstances, goes into the Division Lobby in favour of the sanctioning of further money to a private com-
pany, then the Lord Privy Seal, as far as this side of the House is concerned, will go into the Division Lobby alone. I hesitate to believe that in these days there can be a Member on this side of the House who will go into the Division Lobby in support of spending public money and in advancing schemes of a private company which in this twentieth century impertinently interferes with the right of the people whom they employ to be members of a trade union. This Bill does not square with any of the premises defined by the Lord Privy Seal. He has said in this House and in the country that we are not going to solve the unemployment problem merely by spending public money.

Mr. THOMAS: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, may I say that this Bill, in my judgment, complies with all the conditions that I have laid down, namely, that public money must be spent, but only by giving conveniences and advantages to the community? This Bill complies with those conditions.

Mr. WILSON: In answer to that interjection, I would say that there is no ground for the Lord Privy Seal to be impatient over the discussion. Many Bills have been allowed to pass on his certificate which would not have been permitted to leave this House in other circumstances without further determination. Therefore, I am entitled to put the point of view that I do not agree with the Lord Privy Seal when he says that the proposals in this Bill square with the principles that he has advanced in his anxiety to deal with the problem of unemployment. This Bill is not accelerating work. Every proposal, every extension contained in this Bill are proposals for work—

Mr. THOMAS: The financial grounds affected by this Bill are now before the Development Committee, and it is my duty to protect both sides against statements being made in this House that may prejudice an impartial hearing. Therefore, I must appeal to all sections of the House to keep the point in mind that the Committee has to investigate this matter.

Mr. WILSON: I am still not satisfied with the further exposition put forward by the Lord Privy Seal. He has said that if you can get private companies to
accelerate work it may be justifiable to assist those private companies so to do, in proper circumstances. What is happening in this case? There is abundant evidence to show that the work now proposed to be done is more than 10 years overdue, that appeals from the local authorities and appeals from private individuals have been numerous, calling upon this wealthy octopus of a combine to extend the service in order to give proper facilities to the people of London and district. There is no evidence that there is any shortage of finance so far as this combine is concerned. Only the other day they declared their' dividends, which showed that, so far as their financial position is concerned, there is no impediment and no reason why this work should not be put in hand forthwith, without any assistance from public funds. On those grounds the public are entitled to call this great combine to the bar of public opinion, and to ask them why, in the light of the genuine demand and need for this extension, the proposals of this Bill should not be put in hand now, and they ought to be called upon to say why the work was not put in hand many years ago. I hope that the House will refuse to vote for any extended powers to be given to a company which has outraged the powers that it now possesses, and that the House will refuse to vote a single penny to the advantage of this company which, in the twentieth century, denies to the people in its employ the right to be members of their trade union.

10.0 p.m.

Major GLYN: I hope that hon. Members opposite will allow rue, although I am not intimately connected with the London Electric Railways, to say a word, with authority, on behalf of the management of the railway. The British railways are more proud of the fact that they are in happy relationship with the trade unions than of any other single thing. The record of the railways in this respect is one that might well be followed by other industries. Therefore, when any question of this kind is discussed across the Floor of the House a wrong impression may be given outside we do not state the position accurately. It is an unfortunate accident in the procedure of Parliament that when any railway company wishes to do something for the benefit of the travelling public or for trade, by the laws of this House any question
may be discussed, be it water-bottles in third-class compartments or the fittings of new third-class carriages.

Mr. J. JONES: Why not?

Major GLYN: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) asks, why not. If the Bill in question is to provide, for instance, a new loop-line enabling a main line to be served with coal from a new coalfield, it seems hardly appropriate to the question under discussion. The present Bill is another example of the difficulty in which we find ourselves. I understand that this company are not particularly anxious to carry out the schemes mentioned in the Bill. The schemes are certainly overdue, but the work can only be done under the terms and conditions that have been authorised by Parliament at the request of the Lord Privy Seal for the purpose of doing all that we can to help the unemployed. I understand that if this contract goes through something in the nature of £9,000,000 will be paid out in wages. We may assume that some of the men who would be earning those wages are now in receipt of unemployment benefit. Surely, it is preferable in the public interest not only to serve the interests of the travelling public at this moment but to do all we can, irrespective of party, through public utility companies and other bodies, to promote trade and to give wages to men in their proper occupations. That quite briefly is the purpose of this Bill.
I do not wish to follow the hon. Member in his criticism of the financial arrangements under which this is going to be carried out, but it is essential that the House should give a Second Beading to the Bill in order to enable these financial arrangements to be made at the earliest possible date. In regard to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment may I be allowed to tender my word of praise to the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan) for the most excellent maiden speech he delivered. I am sorry that the hon. Member's friend and colleague was not here to listen to his excellent maiden effort, but even if he, with his greater experience, had been here the case could not have been put better than it was by the hon. Member.
I feel acutely the difficulty in regard to the supervisor grade. While we believe that it is difficult for anybody to serve two masters, it has been proved conclusively that the right of the individual to belong to a union is not incompatible, when he has reached a certain state of responsibility, with responsibilities for discipline, and that some arrangement can be made by the goodwill and understanding between all parties concerned. Just as the railway companies are proud that the railway trade unions are really Brotherhoods, that we are intimately connected with the prosperity of the business, so I am authorised to say that the organisation which exists within the House of Commons will be used for the purposes of free and frank discussion. I can say no more than that, and I cannot pledge or bind anyone. I hope that is clearly understood, but I implore hon. Members to remember that we have this machinery. Let us use it, and I can give this undertaking that if this machinery is called into use the responsible officials and everybody concerned in this vexed question will attend and we shall have a perfectly frank and free discussion of the whole matter. More than that I cannot say, but I hope it will be sufficient. I ask hon. Members to realise the importance of this Bill from the point of view of London traffic and unemployment, and allow the Second Reading to proceed.

Mr. CHARLETON: In view of the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, and the promise of the conference by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

MENTAL TREATMENT BILL [Lords].

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Mr. J. JONES: During my 26 years experience of work in connection with mental deficiency, I have come into contact with all sorts of cases, and the only cases not provided for in this Bill are
those of the most unfortunate character. The poorest of the people do not go into asylums or mental homes voluntarily; they are taken there. One of my old friends who used to work in the building trade with me was taken to the asylum 11 times in two years. When he got there he saw a clock in the entrance hall, and he asked the relieving officer who was taking him, "Is that clock right?" The relieving officer said "Certainly, it is synchronised every day with Greenwich," and he said, "Well, it is the only thing which is right in this place." I have another case in mind of a young man 24 years of age who committed an offence because of his mental disability. He was sent away 100 miles from London. His only relatives are a brother and sister who live in Silvertown. Naturally the officials of the institution will not allow him to come out, because he is subject to certain mental aberrations, and his brother and sister cannot afford the railway fare to visit him at the institution. I have made applications on their behalf for him to be transferred to an institution nearer London where they might be able to go and visit him. As it is, he is practically isolated. That sort of case is not provided for in this Bill.
If we are going to deal with mental deficiency, let us deal with it all the way round. The Board of Control; who are they? It is impossible to approach them. Every time you write a letter you get the same stereotyped reply. I should like to see a real Board of Control composed of civilians, with medical experts; a Board of Control of men and women who have had some experience in dealing with the lives of these people. Many people are now in our mental institutions who ought never to be there at all. The majority are there because they are poor; starvation and privation and the conditions of life have driven them off their mental balance. Now we hear of people going voluntarily into asylums. Those who are rich may go voluntarily, but the poor people cannot. They are generally taken there without their consent. This Bill is going to do nothing in the direction of making it easier for people to keep out of these institutions. That can never be done except by a complete change in our
present method of dealing with these cases. Men and women after the age of 70 may become a bit of a nuisance to some of their relations. They may be in lodgings and they are sent automatically to the workhouse, and are later transferred to the asylum on the ground of senile decay. They are called lunatics because they are no longer capable of looking after themselves, and because in many cases it is too expensive for the local authority to look after them.
We want a complete reclassification of mental hospitals. We want homes for the people when they become incapable of looking after themselves. Such people are not mad and not dangerous, but there they are all together like Brown's cows, because it is cheaper to keep them in herds. This Bill goes part of the way, but not the whole way. I could take any hon. Member to a hospital in West Ham and show him children who, if they had a decent chance, would be restored to something like mental balance. But they are condemned for life, practically, to be inmates of the institution. The same thing can be said about older people, who are neither mad nor dangerous and yet have to remain there because locally there is no power to alter the arrangement. I hope hat when the Bill gets in Committee we shall have a chance of considering the position of all the mentally disabled. We do not want too many experts. Boards of Control are not quite as clever as they think they are. We have tried often to deal with individual cases of the afflicted and have always found our proposals turned down. I hope that some new board will come out of this Bill, so that we shall be able to do something on behalf of those people who ought not to be in institutions at all.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: We have been treated this evening to so many excellent speeches from different points of view that I would not wish to add much before the end of the Debate is due. We are dealing with the distressing cases, that number already some 135,000 of persons in mental institutions. Of these, it is estimated that about one-third are what are called in this Bill non-volitional cases. That is to say, from 40,000 to 50,000 are non-volitional cases. As has been said, the expense and necessity of providing for these people is already met. Therefore, the need of new accommodation
does not arise in their case, although one would naturally hope that in time better accommodation may be provided for them, as for all others. I would suggest that when the Parliamentary Secretary responded to the criticism made in that respect she did not state the whole of the case. With regard to the non-volitional cases, one of the objects of the Bill is to lead those who at the present moment are frightened off from certification, who do not come within the possibilities of treatment now, to submit themselves to treatment or to be so submitted by those who are responsible for them. Therefore there will be need of further accommodation.
It is well for us to recognise that there has been some exaggerated enthusiasm about the Bill as opening a new era. It is well to glance over the course of events in the treatment of the insane. It has varied with our conception and know ledge of their condition. In older days and even among uncivilised races to the present day the idea of insanity was suggested in the phrase "possessed of a devil" and the old stories in the sacred Scripture of men possessed by the devil were simply a picturesque way of indicating insanity in one form or another. Although that way of representing in sanity has gone out of fashion, I am doubtful whether the modern jargon of psychology which has taken its place gives any more accurate and scientific picture than the old idea that an insane man was possessed by a personal and malign influence. The idea of a man "possessed of a devil" gave way to the idea that an insane person was divinely afflicted and had to be restrained as a danger to society and himself. The first organic stage in our system for dealing with lunacy may be said to have started with the Elizabethan Poor Law and the institutional arrangements which arose at that time. The process of dealing with the insane then was one of mechanical restraint and that idea continued until His Majesty King George III, who was himself a sufferer, was treated under humane conditions by Dr. Addington, a physician of that day, and father of the statesman Lord Sid- mouth. He introduced the idea of humane treatment which, applied in such an exalted sphere, naturally attracted attention.
Still the idea of mechanical restraint held sway in the beginning of the last century until Charles Reade wrote "Hard Cash," and Cockton wrote "Valentine Vox" which we all remember reading in our childhood. The indignation aroused was such that finally the lunacy laws were amended. It is also interesting to remember that one statesman or politician who stood more than anyone else of his time for reform of the Lunacy Laws was the great Lord Shaftesbury who gained such fame in connection with social reform. He more than any other contributed to the reform of mental institutions. He was responsible more than anyone else for the passing of the 1845 Act known as the Magna Charta of the insane, and he became one of the first Commissioners in Lunacy. He himself was so much averse from the introduction of the justice into the business of certification of the insane that when, eventually, the Act was passed he resigned his Commissioner-ship in protest and stood for the principle which is being introduced in this Bill to-day. From that time onwards, we have had a conflict or clash, between what has been called the static mind of the lawyer on the one hand and the dynamic force of the biologist on the other—that clash which was described by Sir Clifford Allbutt and by Professor Kenny in their "Outlines of Criminal Law." It is no disparagement to my brothers or sisters of the legal profession to refer to the static mind of the lawyer, because the law must necessarily deal with concrete and defined facts and that really creates the difficulty in this case.
We of the medical profession have necessarily to look at it from the other side. I speak, not as one who has practised the profession of curative medicine, but from the administrative point of view, the view of the lay authority and of the interests of the community as a whole, and especially from the point of view of prevention as well as of cure. Therefore, I would like again to call attention to the position of the medical man in the case. It has been referred to already, so pathetically and intimately, by those of my professional colleagues who have spoken in this Debate, but I ask the House to consider the position they are in when called upon to deal with
a case that is first of all recognised in a family as one of difficulty, one of violent temper, of a rather changeable and fickle state of mind, of a person difficult to deal with. Commonly that person is regarded as not only a nuisance, but as being voluntarily responsible for the trouble in the family and the household. The medical man comes in and realises that it is a case where the strain, in one form or another, has been so great as temporarily to derange the mind of the individual. It is a temporary, early ease, and it would be ridiculous to sign that as a case of certified insanity. It is obvious, from the mere facts of the case, that it arises from the normal incidents of health and of ill-health in a life, such cases as arise after childbirth, after fevers, confusional cases, and temporary alcoholic or toxic cases.
These are different cases that arise and which have to be treated by the medical man, who says, "It is absurd that this should be signed up as insane." These are the cases that up and down the land at present are not being certified and never will be certified; and, therefore, here is a way in which these people can get the expert care, comfort and treatment that will enable them to tide over the time until they can again resume their normal place in family and public life. I think it must invite the sympathy of everybody who understands the case. When the doctor is called in, the case may be in a violent temporary state of insanity. What is the doctor to do? He chafes at delay, and the relatives chafe at delay, but as the case is at present the only possibility for these violent cases is to search out a Justice of the Peace.
I speak as a Justice of the Peace as well as a medical man, and I know how difficult it is for individuals to find a Justice of the Peace when he is required in such a case, or to find one who is able to go into the case. As has been well said already, as a rule the Justice of the Peace defers to the medical man's opinion, and says, "The medical man says so, and obviously I must sign it up." It is true, as the Royal Commission found, that the safeguard of a Justice of the Peace having to certify a case is a very small one, as compared
with the safeguards provided in this Bill. What are those safeguards? You have a man who, it seems to me, is more qualified to look after the safety of the individual and of those concerned than is a Justice of the Peace, because it is to be a medical man approved by the Board of Control. In fact, the actual criticism of this proposal made from my profession is that it may start a new speciality, a separate, distinct class of practitioners. Be that as it may, I think the Board of Control will obviously approve only men who will take the public point of view and who will realise their responsibilities in the matter.
I want the House to sympathise with the ordinary family doctor and help him to get through these delays and difficulties that are so troublesome and tiresome to the patients and to their families. The medical man realises equally well the necessity of protecting the personal liberty of the subject. I do not believe that anybody so much as the medical man would be so acute and keen to discover any kind of ill-treatment and mischief that was going on in a case. There will always until the end of time be cases where the law will be defeated; no law will be perfect, and we who are supporting this Measure so keenly only ask people to recognise that we have put in a safeguard of a medical man approved by the Board of Control in addition to the family doctor, as a more efficient person than the judicial authority who has hitherto been asked to record his opinion. In regard to the Board of Control, I agree with many of the criticisms. It has been suggested that there is a stigma attached to the Board of Control, and that a new body should be formed to deal with these persons. There is no need to have a fresh Board for every class of insane or mentally inflicted who are to be treated.
It was in order to get out of the stigma that the Mental Deficiency Bill of 1913 was passed, and that the Lunacy Commission was absorbed in a new body which was called, not a Lunacy Commission, but a Board of Control. Some stigma must attach to any body that undertakes these functions, because they are concerned with people who may eventually be certified as insane. We must trust the Board of Control, and it will be for us in Committee so to consider the Clauses which deal with the board that the public will
have confidence in it as being an efficient and expert, and at the same time sensible body to deal with this subject. A good deal of the criticism of the future Commissioners of the board and of their efficiency and so on, will stand or be refuted by the attitude of the Treasury in the matter. The Debate on that subject will arise when we take the Money Resolution. Unless we give a salary and position greater than that already enjoyed by the class of experts from whom the Commissioners will be drawn, we shall not get the class of experts to give their services as Commissioners, and therefore we shall not have men of the status of Commissioners whom the superintendents of the institutions and so on will be able to look up to as being able to guide them and control them. If we are sufficiently generous in that matter, we shall be able to get a board which will start with Commissioners and Inspectors who will be able to carry out this work. That is a matter for Committee upstairs, but the criticisms on that point are no reason for refusing the Second Reading of this Bill.
I would like to quote from the Royal Commission the opinion of a man who is an expert critic of the Board of Control, whose opinion as given to the Royal Commission was perhaps stronger than that of anybody else. I refer to Sir Maurice Craig, who said in his evidence that he had seen on the Board of Control a considerable change and progress in their methods; his former criticism had passed away, and he believed that there was evidence that they were doing their work well and in a progressive manner. We must not forget the matters which are naturally left out of this Bill, and which appear in the Royal Commission's Report.
There are two germane matters which do appear in this Bill, and they are of immense importance to the treatment of the individual before and after treatment in institutions. Those are the system of after-care and medical hygiene generally. There are many associations that undertake this voluntary work, which is invaluable. Some power is given for aftercare, and, when we come to Committee, we shall want to extend the powers that are given to the after-care associations in various ways, because I think everybody will recognise that the real trouble of the temporarily insane person begins
when he gets back to his own home, especially in the poorer homes. These people then meet all the weight of domestic responsibility and domestic trouble and inconvenience, and have to fend for themselves, and the whole of the good done by six months' or a year's rest in an institution may be dissipated in three months if there is not sufficient after-care. Above all, we must remember that we want to be able to treat cases as early as possible, with a view to preventing many of the 50,000 people who are now in mental institutions from having to undergo institutional treatment. With newer ideas and newer possibilities we hope to get them early and develop the prevention, rather than have to engage in the cure, of the hopelessly insane.

Sir F. BOYD MERRIMAN: This Debate has shown pretty plainly that on two main principles there is general agreement. There is agreement, on the one hand, as to the principle of substituting prevention for detention, and, incidentally, making that method of treatment available to all classes of the community; and, on the other hand, there is the principle that the liberty of the subject must be duly safeguarded. It seems to me that such disagreement as there is with regard to the Measure arises from the fear that in giving effect to the first principle the second may have been somewhat overlooked. In that connection I would like to say one or two words on Clause 5, because I think the rather unfortunate wording which has been chosen for it gives some ground for these fears. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones), in his very attractive maiden speech, that the words "incapable of volition" which have been chosen to define the cases in Class 5 are the best that can be selected. In one sense the mere form of words is a Committee point, but this Clause is at the heart of the Bill. I do not in the least want to destroy Clause 5; on the contrary, I want it to be read and worked so as to conform with what I understand is the real object of the Bill; but, as I say, the words chosen to describe that particular class of patient are unfortunate.
As I understand the scheme on which we are all bent, it is this. At one end of the classes of patients with whom we are trying to deal we have the voluntary
boarder class, the people who, whatever their other mental defects may be, have nevertheless got sufficient mental capacity or sense to be able to co-operate in their own cure by voluntarily submitting themselves to treatment. At the other end of the scale, there are people who are admittedly certifiable as lunatics and can be dealt with only as such. It is important to observe that it is common ground that you have to put into that category people who actually refuse to co-operate in their own cure by submitting themselves to treatment. It is common ground that those who definitely refuse to submit themselves to treatment have to be dealt with as certifiable. You are trying in Clause 5 to deal with a half way class between the voluntary boarder and the certifiable class whose disorder is such as to disable them from co-operating in their own cure by submitting to treatment. I think I have correctly interpreted the scheme. It is important to note, with regard to this last Clause, that the only incapacity that matters is that their incapacity is such as to prevent them from co-operating in their own treatment, and it is immaterial whether they are or are not incapable in any other respect. [Interruption.] I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that my view is correct. I submit that, unless you are dealing with these people as an intermediate class, you have no right whatever to do away with the judicial safeguard of certification and the rest. It is only because they constitute a half-way class that you get rid of the scheme for certifying.
If I have made that clear, I want to call attention to one point which, during the time I have been in the House listening to this Debate, has not been mentioned, and that is that the Royal Commission made it a definite recommendation that, on the one hand, it was desirable, in talking about lunacy without giving any rigid definition of lunacy, to adopt a nomenclature acceptable to modern medical thought; and, on the other hand, they said that they thought that a greater uniformity of language ought to be devised than was found in the present Lunacy Act. They also pointed out that there is already in the code a large variety of tests or functions of people's state of mind. For example, you have the main definition of a lunatic
as an idiot, or person of unsound mind. You have in various sections differences as wide as this: You have a person of unsound mind who is incapable of managing himself and his affairs. Another case is that of a person of unsound mind who is incapable of managing his affairs, but is capable of managing himself, and is not dangerous to himself or others. In another section, you have a man of unsound mind admittedly a lunatic, whose lunacy is in its nature temporary, and will probably be soon removed. That looks like the class of case you are trying to deal with in Clause 5. Again, you have another type of person, who though not found to be a lunatic, and not detained as a lunatic, is described as being a person who, through mental infirmity arising from disease or age, is incapable of managing his affairs.
You have already all these various definitions of people who are to be dealt with as of unsound mind, and yet in this Bill no attempt whatever has been made to introduce more uniformity into the description of people suffering from unsoundness of mind. On the contrary, what has been done is to add the entirely new conception of what are called non-volitional cases—a new conception in the sense that, so far as I am aware, that particular definition of a class has never been used in connection with lunacy before. You have adopted the Royal Commission's recommendation, on the one hand, to introduce something which, no doubt, represents a current of modern thought, without, on the other hand, making any attempt to introduce any inherent uniformity into the description of persons of unsound mind throughout the code as a whole. My fear is that in the process you have suffered the fate which proverbially overtakes those who insist on putting a new piece of cloth on to an old garment. You have selected this phrase "incapable of volition," and, at the risk of appearing to have what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thorn-bury (Captain Gunston) described as a "habeas corpus face." I am afraid I must say a word or two about this phrase.
I have already indicated that my objection to the phrase is that it really defeats what is admittedly the object of the Bill, because, in my opinion, it is impossible to describe people who are said to be incapable of volition as an intermediate
class between voluntary boarders and certifiable lunatics. To me, as a lawyer, incapacity for volition without any qualification at all is indicative of the most complete unsoundness of mind that can be indicated. Absence of volition is the criterion in law for incapacity to contract, to make a will, even, if you like, to be guilty of a crime. I suggest that you cannot describe anybody as being more of unsound mind than to say that he or she is in every respect, and without any limitation whatever, incapable of volition. Even people who are admittedly lunatics are not necessarily incapable of volition in all respects—not by any means; but here you are describing this intermediate class, which is supposed to be short of lunacy, as people who are, without any qualification except in point of time, incapable of volition. There is no limit to it on the face of the words. I am going to deal in a moment with my suggestion for making the definition comformable to the spirit of the Bill, but to talk about removing the stigma of lunacy from people with whom you want to deal in this intermediate way, and then to describe them as people who are incapable of volition, and leave it at that, is really a contradiction in terms. You are dubbing them for the time being as completely mad in every respect. That, for what it is worth, is my opinion of what the words "incapable of volition" mean. I suggest that you have adopted a medical jargon without appreciating all its implications as a matter of law.
Bear in mind that we are really trying to deal with the case of people who are incapable of co-operating in their own cure by submitting to voluntary treatment. It is obvious, surely, that a person who may be quite apathetic and inert with regard to this matter, and may be definitely suffering from mental disorder on the subject of assistance in his or her own cure, may nevertheless be perfectly capable of being aroused if, for instance some emergency occurs in regard to his or her affairs. Mental incapacity to cooperate in a cure does not in the least involve mental incapacity in regard to other affairs. I agree that the actual form of words is a matter for Committee, but I suggest that this can be dealt with perfectly simply, for the purpose of Clause 5, without stigmatising people as being incapable of volition in all circumstances, whether for the time
being or not, by reversing the wording which you are applying to temporary boarders in Clause 1.
If hon. Members will look at Clause 1, the people who are described as temporary boarders are persons described as those who are desirous of voluntarily submitting themselves to treatment for mental disorder. There is a provision worth noticing in Clause 2, Sub-section (3), with reference to the case of a person who has been received as a voluntary boarder and who becomes at any time incapable of volition. Obviously, by that you do not necessarily mean incapable of volition in every possible respect. What you do mean is, incapable of voluntarily submitting himself to treatment You may deal with that the other way. Supposing, instead of dubbing these intermediate people as being incapable of volition, without any qualification whatever, for the time being, you simply described them as being people who are incapable of voluntarily submitting themselves to treatment for mental disorder. You then avoid any question of using a phrase which makes them appear to be more mad than the lunatic himself. You avoid a phrase which definitely throws a reflection on the patient and upon his capacities in any other respect.

Miss LAWRENCE: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman kindly repeat the phrase?

Sir F. BOYD MERRIMAN: The phrase I suggest, without asking anyone to commit himself to it, is:
incapable of voluntarily submitting themselves to treatment for mental disorder.
You then limit the necessary incapacity which has to be found to what you are professing to deal with.

Sir BASIL PETO: The words in Clause 1 imply to me, as a layman, that if a person is desirous of voluntarily submitting himself to treatment, he is willing, or possibly anxious to have treatment in the institution or hospital. If you merely reverse those words for your definition in Clause 2, does that really mean that he is anxious to get treatment?

Sir F. BOYD MERRIMAN: I do not think the meaning is quite so restricted as that. The point I am trying to make is this. We are, I think, agreed that the real test of this intermediate class is their lack of capacity to co-operate in volun-
tarily submitting themselves for treatment. The way I am putting it does, of course, include those cases where there may be some other incapacity, but you do not make that necessary to the test. As long as he is incapable in that respect, it does not make a person any the less amenable under Clause 5 if there is some other incapacity, but it is not necessary, in order to get a person under Clause 5, that he or she should be totally incapable of volition in all other respects. You limit the incapacity in that respect and, therefore, avoid an unnecessary slur. I have thrown out that suggestion as to a form of words, and I suggest that there is substance behind this. The form of words that has been adopted, to my mind carries the matter very much too far and, as I suggest, over-states the class of people and makes them, if anything, more lunatic than those whom you would otherwise admittedly have to certify.
I am not advocating in this connection any necessity for the retention of the Justice of the Peace. But I would suggest for the hon. Lady's consideration that the fact that you are allowing the introduction of a new class of those mentally afflicted without the intervention of any judicial authority necessitates this additional precaution, that the recommendation, a specimen of which appears in the Schedule, ought to contain the reasons for the recommendation, as in the case of the ordinary procedure of certification, under the headings "Facts observed and facts communicated." In saying that, I am supported by the recommendations of the Royal Commission, who themselves took that view. Let it be remembered, on the one hand, that you are introducing this new class and, on the other, you are taking extra precautions for immunity, so far as you can give it, to the medical profession. Therefore, at least I suggest that you should insist that in your recommendation the facts observed and the facts communicated should appear.
I would only add that I hope it will be insured that in any rules that are permitted to be made under Clause 5 with regard, among other things, to the giving of papers to the patient on request, after recovery, it shall not be permitted, under rules that may
be made dealing with Section 82, so to modify that procedure as to make it possible for the patient to retain the certificate upon which he or she was committed. I only mention that; by way of precaution, because power is given to modify that section under the rules which are to be made under Clause 5. I want to make quite sure that the precautions will not be modified out of existence.
11.0 p.m.
One word with regard to the protection of medical men. Everybody is agreed that it is essential to make it as difficult as possible to attack medical men in connection with this procedure. As has been pointed out more than once, the known reluctance of medical men to certify because of the risks which attach to it, is a very serious matter in connection with lunacy proceedings. The House will realise that there is no halfway house between complete immunity for the medical profession on the one hand, which has not seriously been put forward, and their liability to be attacked in cases where there is bad faith or negligence. It is in connection with the provision of safeguards in the latter class of case that the difficulty arises, because, as has been pointed out, you do not give complete immunity if there is a cause of action either from bad faith or negligence. There is always the risk that a person may be able to get a case on its legs against the doctor.
I would suggest that, in addition to the safeguard provided—and I think it is a substantial and a real safeguard—of going before the Judge, who has to be satisfied not merely that there is an allegation of bad faith or of negligence, but that there is sufficient ground for that allegation, it would be possible to make an additional safeguard on the analogy of the safeguards which are provided with reference to poor persons' litigation. As the House knows, before a person is permitted to sue in the High Court as a poor person under the Poor Persons' Rule, there is an independent committee of investigation, of persons who cannot by any possibility take part professionally in any proceedings which are afterwards laid; a committee appointed, I think, either by the Lord Chancellor or the Law Society, or both. I suggest that it would be quite possible here, and it would be in the interests both of the public and
of the medical profession, to have a voluntary panel of investigation set up, appointed if you like by the Lord Chancellor and the President of the British Medical Association, some independent body like that, to investigate any claim which a person who has been certified desires to bring against a doctor, and make a report to the Judge, for the assistance of the Judge, before he is called upon to make up his mind whether the proceedings should go on. That, I agree, in one sense is a matter of detail, but it is of very vital importance, and I am sure the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will agree, in the interests of the efficient working of the Lunacy Acts, that, if the doctors cannot be given complete immunity, they should nevertheless be safeguarded as much as possible.

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend has no reason to complain of the way in which the Bill has been received by the House. It has been met with enthusiasm, as far as its main proposals are concerned, by almost every hon. Member who has spoken. It is true that hon. Members suggested here and there various points in which they thought the Bill might be improved, and my right hon. Friend will consider sympathetically in Committee any Amendment that can be suggested. It is very seldom that a Bill is received with such general favour. One hon. Member was a little surprised. He said that it was too good to be true, that such a Bill could not possibly come from such a Government and that there must be a catch in it somehow. I want to console the hon. Member by saying that the Bill is taken almost verbatim from the unanimous report of the Royal Commission, and that it was subjected to certain improvements in another place. If the hon. Member likes, he may call it the Royal Commission Bill. That being the case, and the Bill having been received in such a way, I hope that we shall not only have a Second Reading to-night, but that when we get into Committee we shall mutually convince each other and that the Bill will pass through Committee as happily as it has passed through this House.
All the points of objections raised are, in essence, Committee points. I will review some of them now, although they are not Second Reading points at all. I
will take first Clause 5. The hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir F. Boyd Merriman) has dealt with the different classes of persons of unsound mind who would come within the scope of the Bill. There are those whom we may classify as being able to express their willingness of their own volition to be treated. There are those who cannot say "yes" or "no." They are so incompetent that they cannot give an intelligible answer and must be looked after by somebody, because they are incapable of managing their own affairs or of giving a simple answer to a simple question. On the other hand, there are those who have a good deal of will, although it may be a wrongly directed will, and are quite capable, however little sane they may be, of actively resisting any proposal of this kind that may be made to them. If there are any words that will better express the intentions contained in Clause 5, we shall be glad to consider them. With regard to the protection of the doctor, which is dealt with in Clause 16, several hon. Members have expressed their views. If we can deal with that matter more satisfactorily in Committee, well and good, but having regard to the way in which the matter has been discussed and re-discussed, I very much doubt whether the intelligence of the Committee will be able to deal with it any better. As to the money which it was stated the local authority ought to have for discharging their duty, I would point out that the main duty is already upon them. Every single person is under care at the moment in asylums, and it is necessary to put this in the Bill because if we do nothing we should be freeing—

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not true that in addition to those under care that there are many others driven underground by the present treatment who will require care?

Miss LAWRENCE: I do not suppose there is a single case where the person is utterly incompetent which is not taken care of by somebody. The person who cannot say yes or no are all under care in asylums now, and we calculate that about one-quarter to one-third of the cases now in asylums will come under the Clause. The new duties imposed on local authorities are not mandatory, but permissive. Some local authorities already exercise them and have already passed
special Acts of Parliament. The Bill places other local authorities in exactly the same position as London. Those who have pressed the Government on this matter will observe the extreme care with which the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) dealt with the question. He is an old and experienced politician. He knows what Clause 135 of the Local Government Act means as well, or better than any hon. Member, and I noticed with all the admiration one gives to a Parliamentary tactician, in the hope of improving one's own Parliamentary style, that he did not say the county councils should have this money. I appreciate the delicacy with which he handled the matter. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman may again occupy the position which I so unworthily occupy, he was careful to prepare himself a little way of retreat. He never said, "I will give this money to the local authorities," but he was prepared to say that the local authorities thought it should be given.
Now let me deal with a matter which has disturbed a good many hon. Members. It is perfectly true that the Royal Commission said—and we have put it in the Bill—that the Board of Control have many imperfections. The hon. Member for East Islington (Dr. Bentham) said that she found the Board of Control very good but a highly mysterious body. I do not wonder; if you look at the defects which the Royal Commission found. I will give two. First, it was understaffed; second, its duties took it travelling continually all over the provinces. If anything is calculated to make a Government Department mysterious and inaccessible it is that it should be always in the provinces and never in London. We propose to remedy that. We propose to bring the Board of Control into much closer relationship with the Ministry of Health than ever it has been before. We propose to place the Board of Control more in the position of a department of the Ministry. The chairman to be appointed by the Minister of Health is to be an executive officer, that is to say, in the position of head of a department, and hon. Members need not be afraid that there is no Parliamentary control. They have precisely the same amount of Parliamentary control over the Board of Control as they have over any other department of the
Minister of Health. We present their Estimates; we appoint them; with the Treasury we settle their salaries; we answer questions for them in the House. Any part of their action can be discussed. This Bill has been received with the utmost unanimity. Every point that has been raised is of a kind that can be dealt with in Committee. I ask the House now, at the end of this long and careful Debate, to give us the Second Reading and to postpone consideration of detailed points until we can get upstairs and discuss them together.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: While anxious to oblige the Parliamentary Secretary after her very short speech upon the Bill and on the points raised, I feel that the Bill is of so much importance that the House is entitled to consider it further on one or two points which, so far, have not been mentioned. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, the Bill has been received with a wonderful feeling of unanimity, although I must confess, having heard all the Debate, that there are many varieties of understanding as to what the Bill really means. It is not a lunacy Bill; it is not a mental defective Bill. It is a Bill to get at the unfortunate cases before lunacy and certification are reached. That brings forward a most important point which has not been sufficiently stressed, and that is the case of the voluntary boarder or voluntary patient. The House has heard of the stigma, the shame and the horror which attach to lunacy and certification, how people in all walks of life are terrified at the word "insanity." One of the most tragic events in any family is, first of all, the suspicion that one member of the family may be mentally unbalanced; then on top of that, the fear that this may lead to insanity; and after that, if the case unfortunately does become insane and the patient is certified, the horror and shame and the stigma which remain upon the whole family. In the case of adolescent children it may very well affect their future life. They may not be able even to get married because father or mother was a lunatic, because of the fear that lunacy may be hereditary or a visitation of God.
What has been the result? That families in all classes of life have done all they can to hide these cases. On the earliest suspicious sign of mental in-
stability they have gone to their doctor. One of the most tragic things that can happen to any man in private practice, as has happened to me so often, is when a poor patient, perhaps a woman, worried to death, with little money, her husband out of work, with no peace and no rest, finds that she cannot sleep, and that her nerves give way, and then she asks, "Oh, doctor, am I going mad? That is one of the most horrible questions which can be put to a medical man. Then take the ex-service man who has been struggling against adversity and fighting against overwhelming odds until the time comes when he overbalances for lack of treatment. There is also the business man who, under the stress of modern life, worries and worries until he reaches the point where he breaks down, and then we have records of suicides and other troubles. Would it not be better, if it could be arranged, that these people should know that treatment, absolutely separate and distinct from any suggestion of insanity, was available for them? If a man has an illness of the lungs he goes to a doctor or to a hospital, has his ailment diagnosed and undergoes the appropriate treatment. If a man feels that he has any heart weakness he takes medical advice and, though he may be told that he is suffering from heart disease, he does not worry himself in the same degree as he would at the merest suggestion of insanity. But once the word "mental" is mentioned, immediately a patient becomes worried. What we want is a change in the attitude of the public towards the idea of mental illness. It should be regarded just as physical illness is regarded, and the public should get the idea that it can be treated, with the hope of effecting an improvement.
We in this House have a great opportunity. The Minister of Health has been even braver than the Royal Commission. Their report marked a distinct advance, and he has advanced a little beyond that report. I would like to see the House advancing a little beyond the Minister of Health. Let us take our courage in our hands and say that we are determined to recognise mental illness in the same way as physical illness and not as insanity. Does the Bill carry out that idea? I say that it does not. I say that it falls short. The first four Clauses deal with the voluntary boarder or patient. What is the idea of the Royal Commission and of
the Minister and of this House It is that on the very first signs of mental trouble— irritability, instability, hopelessness, worrying—the patient should be able to say, "I can offer myself as a voluntary boarder, for the requisite treatment, and I can be treated for this illness, just as for a broken leg or for bronchitis or pneumonia, and if I do so at the proper time I have a great chance of recovery." But the Bill says that the patient may be received after he has given notice, or, in the case of an infant, after notice has been given on his behalf, and that the case is then to be notified to the Board of Control. That spoils the whole scheme. I have nothing against the Board of Control, and, if time permitted, I would like to say how highly I think of the Board of Control, but in the eyes of the public the Board of Control means that the case is one of lunacy. We cannot get away from that fact. If a patient knows that by going to a general hospital or a licensed private hospital he is liable to be inspected at any time by a Board of Control, the suspicion of insanity is immediately aroused. With working-people, with uneducated people, what is going to happen. There will be no voluntary patients at all on account of that stigma and that fear of lunacy. The Minister ought to be courageous and advise the House and the country to treat the voluntary boarders as patients suffering from a physical illness, pure and simple. In no circumstances should they be notified to the Board of Control unless special arrangements were found necessary in the case of infants, sent in by parents or guardians.
By doing that, once the public get to know that they can go, at this stage of early mental illness, to a hospital and be treated, without any control or notification to the Board of Control, I think you will make a great step forward, and will get the people to go. The result will be to help thousands of people who now, through worry and anxiety, and lack of early treatment, go over the border line and became insane, and often commit suicide. Those are the cases we want to get at. We want to stop them going over the line, and we can only do that by persuading them to come for early treatment. You will never persuade them once they get the idea that the Board of Control is in the
picture. These Debates are reported in the Press, and to-morrow morning there will be thousands of worried people in this country reading the Debates to see what the people are going to do for these voluntary boarders. I hope the Minister will seriously consider that point, be courageous, and say, "Very well, I regard these cases as cases of mental illness, and being mental illness it is the same as physical illness, and being physical illness the Board of Control shall not come in."
When we come to the other cases, of which the ex-Solicitor-General spoke, the qualifying point there is the non-volitional cases which are likely to be improved. That Clause qualifies the whole class of case, but the great danger there is going to be this, that every case in the future that is not a voluntary boarder will be called a temporary case, because no doctor will commit himself to saying that a patient cannot get better in six or 12 months. Prognosis in mental disease is not easy, and no doctor, for his own sake, will say, "I will certify this case as a lunatic, and there is no chance of recovery." Every case will come under your temporary patients' Clause, because the doctors will hope that they will improve within the six months or perhaps the 12 months, and will put off the stigma of certification as long as they can. There is no reason why they should not do it, and there is no disadvantage in doing it. I think the ex-Solicitor-General was looking at it too much from the legal aspect.
Is the Board of Control necessary? My opinion is that the Board of Control is the only safeguard for patients, because they are an independent body of medical and legal men, with some others, with expert knowledge of administration and of lunacy or mental work, absolutely unrelated to any of the local authorities, all perfectly independent men, and having the interests of the patient at heart. They want to see, first of all, that the patient is in proper circumstances, in a proper building, and secondly, that he is properly treated; and they have the power of compelling the patient either to be released—I do not like that word, which is a wrong word, and I will say instead discharged as cured—or certified, if necessary. They are absolutely independent of all parties
except the Minister of Health. It is practically an impossibility for any patient to-day to be improperly detained. The National Society of Lunacy Reform presented a number of cases to the Commission which they said were cases that had been improperly detained, but in every single case the Royal Commission did not agree with them. Members may take it for certain that at present it is almost impossible for a patient to be improperly detained. These temporary patients are visited by the Board of Control, who can order them to be released or, if necessary, certified.
They are visited by visiting committees or visiting justices or by their friends, and one may take it for granted that these cases which go into hospital are received with the sole idea of a cure, and that under no possible circumstances can they be better looked after than by that body of gentlemen who live in London, and who see that the best is done for them. So I would increase the powers of the Board of Control; I would make them responsible to this House, but I would not under any circumstances allow them to have anything to do with voluntary boarders.
One other great defect in the Clause is that voluntary boarders may go to mental hospitals—that is, to asylums. That is absolutely ridiculous and fatal. You would have a border line, nervy cases going into mental hospitals, and seeing real cases of insanity, and that would be just the sort of thing to topple such cases over the line. Under no circumstances ought voluntary boarders to be sent to a mental hospital; they should be sent as out-patients to other hospitals. There are three hospitals that have these patients, one at Cardiff, one at Oxford, and the Middlesex Hospital in London. The Bill gives power to extend that. I feel strongly about this Bill because we are at the parting of the ways. This is going to be an epoch-making Bill, and I want the Minister of Health to have the credit of it, because he has had the courage to go a little beyond the Report of the Royal Commission; I want the House to have the courage to go even beyond the Minister, and to insist that the voluntary boarders should be kept away from the Board of Control.
The question of safeguards for the medical profession has been raised. The
safeguards in the Bill are absolutely valueless, because he would be a very poor lawyer who could not make out a primd faciâ case to satisfy any judge, and I do not think the remedy of the late Solicitor-General is very much better. I recognise that it is a difficult thing to deal with I would ask the House to bear in mind that the medical profession is an honourable profession. They really try to do the best they can for their patients, and they have no real desire to see that people are locked up and detained or certified as insane when they are not insane. The result is that doctors at the present time, owing to difficulties which have arisen, refuse to certify, and we shall find that they will refuse to recommend under this Bill. There is a simple way out of the difficulty. Hon. Members know that there is such a body as the General Medical Council, which consists of medical men and some laymen, and any medical man who does any action which is infamous in a professional respect is reported to the Council which examines the case. If that man be guilty, they cross him off the roll, and he cannot practice as a registered medical practitioner. Why should not the Board of Control, when they come across a case where a certification is wrong, or where it is alleged that a medical man has betrayed the trust reposed in him, and has kept under control a patient who ought not to have been kept under control, refer the facts to the General Medical Council? If the Council said "We believe the charge to be true" and struck the doctor's name off the roll, that action would ipso facto be evidence in support of any proceedings taken against him to recover damages. That is a simple way out of the difficulty. The essential thing is, first, to trust the Board of Control and, second, to trust the General Medical Council; by doing that you get out of all legal quibbling. Whatever the safeguards that may be introduced, it will be found that doctors will distrust them, and that distrust will make them hesitate to certify. The hon. Lady on the Treasury Bench spoke of being satisfied with the reception the Bill had had, but I hope the points I have outlined will be brought up in Committee. If I am a member of the Committee, I shall embody them in a series of Amendments and I hope the Minister will give them serious consideration and really make the Bill
what it is intended that it should be—a hope and a Godsend to many people who to-day are very worried, weary and tired.

Mr. McSHANE: I am opposing this Bill for almost every reason for which the Minister claimed support for it. I find it difficult to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies), because in the first part of it he was asking us to beware of the Board of Control and afterwards was urging us to give the Board further powers. I am opposed to the Bill entirely and could go through it Clause by Clause and give reasons for my objections, but I do not propose to do that, and will deal with the general principles. To Clause 1 I will make only one reference. That Clause actually invites a person voluntarily to submit himself to treatment, I should say without hesitation that if any person submitted himself to the control of the Board of Control, it would prove at once that he was quite insane; and I may further suggest that those who concocted that Clause, in thinking anyone would submit himself to the control of the Board of Control, are also more or less insane. One point which has struck me about the Debate is that there has not been a speaker who did not make some reference to the Board of Control which was not to its credit. In the hearts of most of us there is a fear that the Board of Control has too much power; it has statutory powers to prevent any local authority, or even Parliament itself, getting at it, and it is that aspect of the position with which I wish to deal to-night. Every reason which the Minister of Health put forward for the treatment of these cases was a reason for taking the whole of this business out of the hands of the Board of Control. That Board has been established since 1840, and its tradition affects every official of that body and, although those officials are well-intentioned, they cannot act as most of the Members of this House would like them to act, because of the tradition of that institution. Not a single hon. Member of this House—not even the Minister of Health—who tried to defend the Board of Control has done so without saying something against that body. The outstanding feature of the Debate has been the complete dissatisfaction of every side of the House with the Board of Control.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: That is not so on this side.

Mr. McSHANE: The exception generally proves the rule. I will give an example which occurred in my own town. One of the officers of the Board of Control certified that a certain young lady was mentally defective, and she had been placed in the workhouse which was administered by the board of guardians of which I happened to be the chairman. We had this young lady before the board of guardians. We examined her and talked to her for an hour, and at the end of that time we came to the conclusion that she was as sane and as normal as most of us. This officer who had not the skill of the specialist was allowed to exercise a power of that kind. I saw that officer on the following day, and I asked what was her reason for suggesting that this young lady should be put into a mental home, and I told her that the guardians were opposed to it. She replied: "Do you know the history of that girl; she is 17½ years of age, and she has never earned her living since she was 14." I replied that I thought that was proof that she was sane and was only aping the best society. It subsequently transpired that this young lady who had been certified by the officer of the Board of Control was suffering from venereal disease. I object to any officer of the Board of Control having power to send a person for all time into a mental home. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) said that unfortunately some of the local authorities had not sufficient time to deal with such cases. My complaint is that they take too short a time and have too much power. Most of the medical men who have taken part in this Debate have spoken in favour of the Bill, but they are all specialists and so are the members of the Board of Control. A specialist has been defined as a man who knows more and more about less and less.
I have risen to-night to voice my objection to this Bill. The whole point of the Bill is that the taint of insanity shall be totally removed from those who are undergoing mental treatment, probably for a transitory illness. That cannot be achieved as long as the Board of Control deals with the matter. The Board of Control still deals with lunacy, and that
is the whole function of the Board of Control. Whatever patient comes in any way under the Board of Control, that patient is, ipso facto, affected with the whole taint of that for which the Board of Control exists, and it is for that reason that I object to this Bill. I should have preferred to see the whole matter taken out of the hands of the Board of Control, and put into the hands of the municipality as a social service linked up with the hospital—with bodily disease—as being, as in fact it often is, due purely to a bodily disease. As long as it is under the Board of Control, the very purpose for which the Bill has been drawn up is defeated and for that reason I object to the Bill.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I do not apologise for intervening, because I have sat here for a good many hours listening to speeches on the Bill. I listened with great interest to the Minister of Health and to the medical Members of the House who have expressed their opinions on the Bill, but I want to approach the question from another aspect, which has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), that is to say, the aspect of the layman—of a man who has been engaged in local government work, and has therefore had to come in contact with these mental cases, and also of a man who has had a different kind of experience, the experience of a magistrate who has had to certify cases of lunacy. We must bear in mind that, after all, this Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, is founded upon she Report of a Royal Commission; and when we look at the names of some of those who served on that Commission, we surely must feel some confidence in the Bill as a whole, although there may be, as has been said, some portions of it that will require amendment in Committee. I should like to remind the hon. Member for Walsall that there is not a Bill that comes before this House that does not require amendment in, at any rate, some particulars; but the mere fact that these alterations are necessary does not mean that the Bill itself is bad. In my opinion the present Bill, on the whole, is a very good Bill.
Let me refer to the names of the members of the Commission. The Chairman was that very eminent lawyer, Mr. H. P. Macmillan, K.C., and the Commission also included Sir Humphry
Rolleston, Earl Russell, Sir Ernest Hiley, the present Attorney-General—in whose opinion on these matters, I am sure, the hon. Member for Walsall will have a little confidence—and the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell). Anyone who reads through the Commission's Report is bound to agree that the time has come for some reform in regard to this question. As has been pointed out already, this Bill is by no means a party or controversial Bill. The present Government are evidently in agreement with the last Government that something ought to be done on the lines recommended by the Royal Commission. I welcome whole-heartedly the Clause dealing with early treatment. I think that boys and girls ought to be dealt with in altogether different institutions from adults. I know that the local authorities have power to deal with them now, but, unfortunately, very few local authorities have set up these separate institutions, and I suggest to the Minister of Health that even now, before this Bill is passed, all possible pressure should be brought to bear upon local authorities throughout the country, who have not yet undertaken this work, to proceed with it as quickly as possible. Those of us who have to deal with educational matters know that the most pitiable thing that can be found among a lot of school children is the boy or girl who is a mental defective, but not bad enough to be taken to an asylum. That child very often becomes the butt of the other children in the school, and does not have a very comfortable time. On the other hand, the old system of sending the children to an ordinary asylum was far more harmful than leaving them at home. We have the power and we ought to see that the local authorities exercise it. As regards the question of magistrates being relieved of the duty of certification, I can assure the House from my own knowledge, that magistrates will welcome this more than anyone. It is a most distasteful duty, and, as a magistrate, I shall be very glad to feel that I cannot be called upon to perform it. In temporary cases a magstrate feels that he has a very difficult task, and a decision on such a question is really not one for a mere layman. The hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Hastings) mentioned one fact that
has come to my notice time and time again.
People who are the worst mental cases are always convinced in their own minds that they are perfectly sane, and it very often happens that they are perfectly sane up to a point. When members of local authorities go to those asylums as visitors or, as I have gone, with cricket teams which play against a team of asylum attendants, you are constantly asked by persons who come from your own district why they are not allowed to go home. They assure you they are perfectly sane and talk as though they were until you begin to be convinced that they are. It is only when something happens to upset one of them and half-a-dozen attendants are needed to deal with him that you realise that such a person, although sane on many points, is not capable of carrying on his own affairs.
As regards Clause 11, which deals with the question of the reorganisation of the Board of Control, at the present time there are supposed to be 15 Commissioners, but I believe there are only 13. Under the new proposals, these are going to be reduced to five—a chairman, and not more than four others, all of whom, other than the chairman, are to be paid. One of the commissioners must be a lawyer, another a medical man, and another a woman, but we are not told exactly who the other one is to be, whether a professional man or just someone who is interested in this matter. I suggest that he should be a layman and possibly one who has had some experience either as a member of a visiting committee or as a certifying magistrate. I am satisfied that the general public has a sort of suspicion—I do not suggest there is any real foundation for it—of lawyers and medical men dealing with this question. I am not saying this in any way disparagingly of lawyers and medical men, but only what I know to be the facts. If it were given forth that at any rate one of the commissioners should be a layman who could judge without medical or legal knowledge and from the common-sense point of view, I think it would inspire a general confidence among the public. This criticism and suspicion on the part of the public is probably ill-founded, but it is there.
It has been suggested by some of those who have served as commissioners that this new arrangement is not going to be altogether a success. As I understand it, some of the commissioners already serving will not, of course, be re-appointed, but will remain in a sort of semi-official capacity. They will rank somewhat with inspectors and assistant commissioners, but will have no authority. They will be able to attend the meetings and may offer certain comments, but they will have no voting powers. I wonder why these commissioners are going to be kept on at all? Is it to save them losing any emoluments now attaching to their offices, or is it thought that they may be of some use in offering advice? At any rate, they are to have no power. Many of them have had long experience in the treatment of mental cases and some of them are specialists in this particular branch of the medical profession.
It is a pity we cannot utilise their services to a fuller extent than the Bill provides for. None the less the Bill ought to receive a Second Reading. It may be said that the Clause that gives the Minister power to appoint is not altogether in the best interests of the country, because we are getting Bill after Bill in which power is given to

the Minister of Health to appoint officials. Leave the officials there and it places a great responsibility upon him. Still I have not found anyone yet who can suggest a better method of dealing with it. Under the present system the Commissioners are appointed by the King. I take it that means that they are appointed by some Member of the Government acting on behalf of the King. Now we are going to know definitely that it is to be the Minister of Health. The present system of dealing with the mentally afflicted is not by any means satisfactory. The Bill is a step in the right direction. It will give greater facilities for treatment to people with mental disorders, and if it is going to help them—and I am sure it is—it is worth all the time we are spending in discussing it and all the time we shall be trying to amend it in Committee.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle.]

The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes 172.

Division No. 168.]
AYES.
[11.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Albery, Irving James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Beamish, Bear-Admiral T. p. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beaumont, M. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Somerville, D. G (Willesden, East)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Long, Major Eric
Thomson, Sir F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lymington, Viscount
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mond, Hon. Henry
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Womersley, W. J.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Sir George



Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, John R.
Colonel Fremantle and Mr. Charles Williams.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Burgess, F. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Benson, G.
Cameron, A. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Cape, Thomas


Arnott, John
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Brockway, A. Fenner
Charleton, H. C.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brooke, W.
Chater, Daniel


Barnes, Alfred John
Brothers, M.
Compton, Joseph


Daggar, George
Lathan, G.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawson, John James
Romerll, H. G.


Dickson, T.
Lawther, W. (Barnard castle)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dukes, C.
Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy


Duncan, Charles
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ede, James Chuter
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sanders, W. S.


Edmunds, J. E
Logan, David Gilbert
Sandham, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Egan, W. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sherwood, G H.


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shield, George William


Forgan, Dr. Robert
McElwee, A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Simmons, C. J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McShane, John James
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Marcus, M.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gill, T. H.
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Glassey, A. E.
Marley, J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gossling, A. G.
Marshall, Fred
Sorensen, R


Gould, F.
Mathers, George
Stamford, Thomas W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
Matters, L. W.
Strauss, G. R.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Messer, Fred
Sullivan, J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mills, J. E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hardie, George D.
Morley, Ralph
Tinker, John Joseph


Haycock, A. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Townend, A. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Mort, D. L.
Vaughan, D. J.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wallace, H. W.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Herriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Westwood, Joseph


Horrabin, J. F.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Isaacs, George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Johnston, Thomas
Perry, S. F.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Price, M. P.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester. Loughb'gh)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Pybus, Percy John
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Kelly, W. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Young, R. S, (Islington, North)


Kennedy, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Kinley. J.
Raynes, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Lang, Gordon
Richards, R.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Wilfrid Pailng.


Question put, and agreed to.

MENTAL TREATMENT [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1922, and such of the provisions of the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1927, as relate to the constitution and organisation of the work of the Board of Control, the exercise of the powers of the Board and the protection of persons putting those Acts into operation, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of such salaries as may be fixed by the Minister of Health with the consent of the Treasury to the chairman of the Board of Control and to such
1082
number of senior commissioners, commissioners other than senior commissioners, and assistant commissioners as may be fixed; and
(b) of such annual superannuation allowances, additional allowances, and gratuities under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, as may, by virtue of the said Act, become payable to persons who, being persons in the service of a local authority in respect of whom contributions have been paid under the Asylums Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, are appointed to be commissioners or assistant commissioners, or to the legal personal representatives of such persons."—(King's Recommendation, Signified).—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Sir K. WOOD: I must apologise for addressing the House again, and delaying it, in view of the considerable business which follows this Resolution, but this is an important matter, involving a considerable alteration in the constitution and organisation of the Board of Control. I am sorry the
Minister of Health has not thought it desirable to give us a reasonable opportunity of discussing this important resolution. I do not think he can complain of the reception of the Bill and I hope he will give us a reasonable opportunity of discussing the alteration in the constitution of an important organisation and will move the Adjournment of the Debate. If we pass the Resolution we give authority subject to any alterations which may be made in Committee, for a reconstitution of the Board of Control. The undoubtedly considerable duties of the Board involve the scrutiny of reception documents and continuing reports, and important duties in connection with the visitation of places where people are detained. A large portion of their work consists of superintending the arrangements for the treatment and care of patients. In London they have a special duty of licensing houses and in the country of examining the records of people who are unfortunately detained. These are responsible and important duties. The criticisms levelled at the Board of Control have not been in regard to personnel or the manner in which they are carrying out their duties, but that there are not a sufficient number of commissioners, that the staff is not sufficient to carry out the duties. I do not agree with the statement of one hon. Member that the criticisms and complaints have been against the present Board of Control. Most Members recognise that their difficult and delicate work has been carried out satisfactorily, and that statement is borne out by the Report of the Royal Commission. There was ample evidence before the Commission of the nature of the work of the Board of Control, and the hon. Member only brought one piece of evidence to support his statement, and at the time I wondered whether he had brought the case to the notice of the Board of Control itself. My criticism is not directed in any way at the Board of Control, but rather to examine, before we authorise the payment of these salaries under this new constitution, whether we shall improve the Board of Control by the suggestions in the Financial Resolution and in the Bill itself.
It is suggested that the Board of Control should be divided into two parts, and that one particular body of the members
of the Board should be senior Commissioners. Paragraph (a) of the Resolution says that there will be Commissioners other than senior Commissioners—assistant Commissioners "as may be so fixed." What number of Commissioners is contemplated, senior and other than senior? What justification is there for the division between senior and junior Commissioners? In the present Board of Control the members are equal in status and they are recognised as full members. Would it detract in any way from the position and influence of the Board to make this division? Will the authority and status of the Commissioners other than senior be of such a character as to weaken their influence? These Commissioners will have to visit many important institutions. It is important that Parliament should give them all possible authority in order that they may carry out their important work. It is a fact, I think, that the present Board of Control is insufficient in numbers. It is stated in the Royal Commission's report that their number has not been sufficient for them to carry out even their statutory duties.
Where it has been laid down by Act of Parliament that two Commissioners should make certain visits, owing to the depleted numbers of the Board only one Commissioner has been able to go, and I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates a sufficient number, so appointed to the Board of Control, to enable them properly to carry out their statutory duties. I also want to know, with regard to the appointments to the Board of Control, what appointments are in fact contemplated. It is suggested that medical opinion should be represented there, and that there should be certain legal representatives. On the present Board of Control there is what is called a lay representation, and there is a good deal to be said for that particular kind of representation being continued. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates a lay representative, and whether a woman is to be made a member of the Board of Control. Further, what is to become of the present members of the Board of Control? Are they to be continued in office, and what arrangements are being made in that connection?
There is only one other matter that I desire to raise, and that is contained in
paragraph (b) of the Resolution, which deals with superannuation allowances, and I want the right hon. Gentleman briefly to state what he contemplates there. As I understand it, if an officer who is now a servant of a local authority is appointed to be one of these assistant commissioners, the years of service which he has had with the local authority will, for the purposes of pension, count as if his service had been rendered the whole of the time with the State, and I should like to have some confirmation of that. These are important matters. The success of this Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, largely depends upon its administration, and in no small degree upon the administration of the Board of Control. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the importance of the questions I have put, and no doubt there are other questions which other hon. Members behind me may desire to put. We desire to do our duty, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health desires to do his. It is in that spirit, and with a desire to gain information as regards the future administration of this Measure, that I venture to put these questions to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir B. PETO: After the very able and important speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K Wood), hon. Members opposite might think there were no further questions to be put or comments to be made, but the first thing worthy of notice is that this Bill to which we have just given a Second Beading is no exception to other Measures that have come before the House, in that they all make a fresh call on the public finances and establish in some new entrenchment a new branch of the bureaucracy. I find, on referring to the Bill, that the underlined portions of the Bill occupy no less than three pages and refer to a large part of three Clauses of the Bill, so that, numerically speaking, one-seventh of the Clauses of the Bill require to be covered by this Financial Resolution. Besides that, in the speech which the hon. Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, gave us on the Second Reading, she told us something that gave me great anxiety. She told us that the Commissioners in the past had been regarded as a somewhat elusive body, whom people could
not always find, because they were very hard-worked gentlemen who had to go to all parts of the country, and consequently were not always to be found in London. She said the Government were going to remedy that by establishing this Board of Control as a department of the Ministry of Health, where, I concluded, some or all of them would always be found.
I want to know whether it is the purpose, under this Financial Resolution, to establish this Board of Control permanently at the Ministry of Health. In Clause 11, in the underlined portion of the Bill, it says:
The Board of Control shall consist of the chairman (who shall be a paid commissioner) and not more than four other commissioners, all of whom shall be paid commissioners.
That appears to be the central and guiding body of the Board of Control, and they are always to be found, I gather in Whitehall. Commissioners other than senior commissioners, and the assistant commissioners, of an undefined number, are, I suppose, to be the minor lights of the Board of Control, who will do the travelling about and the elusive part of the business in future. I think this is a very formidable proposition. The hon. Lady indicated that the chairman of the Board of Control was in future going to occupy a position analogous to that of the head of any other department, and she put that to us as a government recommendation, because we were led to infer that this highly paid chairman of the Board of Control would be in close touch with the Ministry of Health and that anybody who wanted to consult him would always be able to find him there.
From the point of view of the taxpayer, this seems an extraordinary proceeding. I think he is entitled to ask the question the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich asked as to the undefined number of these commissioners other than senior commissioners and assistant commissioners who are to be appointed. I think we are also entitled to ask what is the exact range of salaries from the Chairman, who is to be permanently attached to the right hon. Gentleman on the front Bench, and the other people who are to do the real hard work of travelling about the country.
We should also like to know what is the total. There is no key to that in this Resolution, and it is a somewhat singular thing. We are asked to give a blank cheque. The Minister is to appoint these people. He and nobody else, and he is to fix the amount of their salaries, and all this Committee is asked to do is to authorise what Mr. Micawber calls the "demnition tottle." [Interruption, and HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] We are entitled to know the total; in other words, what is the exact total of all these salaries to be paid. We are entitled to know what each grade is going to be paid and what it is going to cost. We would not fulfil our duty if we did not insist on this information, and I am surprised the hon. Gentle man the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who is put down on the Order Paper to move this Resolution, has not given us some of these elementary facts. It is quite obvious what will really occur. I should have thought the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in moving this Resolution, would have been able to tell us exactly what arrangements he had made and how much money was going to be paid, and that he would have given us some outline of what the duties of these graded officials from the top of the hierarchy downwards was going to be—.
It does not end there. There is an elaborate scheme under Clause 11, Subsection (8b), on page 13, as to what is to happen on the retirement of all these new officials in this new branch of the Civil Service which is going to roam about the country, and in the office of the Minister of Health. It is a serious problem, when we are gradually getting rid of the tremendous burden of War pensions, that there should be another body of Civil Servants of unknown numbers who will receive the appropriate pension. We do not know at the present moment how many there are who will be capable of reaching the age limit. Those who brought forward this Financial Resolution have not the slightest conception of the scope which we entitle the Minister of Health to authorise. Therefore, I make no apology whatever if I fulfil my duty. That is what hon. Members on the other side of the House and anybody who has the slightest regard to their duties should do.
We ought to try to lighten the burden which is being constantly increased. We make no apology for occupying some moments more than the Minister of Health desires, because there is no other business which has been talked about for to-night. I think it is entirely the fault of the Government. If, instead of showing anxiety to rush the business through anyway, they had taken a little longer in introducing the Financial Resolution, it would have saved their time in the end. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: Order, Order. Hon. Members on my right have had a very good share of the Debate this evening.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think it might be as well if I were to indicate what is in the resolution. I can assure the hon. Baronet that I have no desire to shirk any explanation of it. I was indeed delighted to listen to him before I spoke myself for he has thrown a very great light on the Bill. I am not complaining about the reception of the Bill, except that I am unaccustomed to having honeyed words poured out in such profusion. Those who approved this Bill might have helped us by saving a little time and letting their hearts throb in silence. Some of the questions asked are answered in the Bill itself and in the Financial memorandum that is in the hands of hon. Members and which I must assume they have read; and, therefore, perhaps I need not go all over that. There is a great change being made in the organisation of the Board of Control. On pages 154 and 155 of the Royal Commission's report, with which of course all hon. Members are familiar, it is clear that the present organisation of the Board of Control is not such as might ensure effective administration. It is difficult to have a body—a soviet of people—all co-equal who are engaged all of them on the job of visitation in the country and central administration at headquarters.
It is clear, of course, that to get effective administration, on the lines laid down in all other Departments, you should differentiate between those who have final responsibility and those who are concerned with visitation and inspection. The distinction which is made in the Bill between senior commissioners and other commissioners, including the
assistant commissioners, is so that we can get this clear demarcation—the senior commissioners will be primarily engaged on central administration, control and policy; the other commissioners will be primarily engaged in the work of visitation and inspection in the Provinces. That is according to sound methods of administration and needs no further elaboration.
The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) asked as to the composition of the Board—whether it was the intention that one of the senior commissioners should be a layman. The Committee is aware that provision is made that at least one shall be a medical commissioner, and that at least one shall be a woman. The intention, as advised at present, is that there shall be two medical commissioners, one legal commissioner, and one woman. The chairman, in addition to the four, will not be lay in the sense of being neither legal nor medical, because, after all, they are being called upon to undertake responsible executive and administrative duties, some of which are legal and some are medical in their character. The people must be experts. They are going to be the senior officers of this branch of the public service. One does not speak of a "layman" when one is speaking of a responsible public servant who is expected to be an expert at his particular job. The right hon. Member for Woolwich, West, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), with their zeal for knowledge, asked as to the number of other commissioners, their salaries, and, as I understood it, their life histories. I think that was asking a little too much.
If hon. Members will look at the Resolution, which is carefully drafted, they will see that it states "such salaries as may be fixed" and "such Commissioners as may be fixed." If I appeared at this desk with a cut-and-dried scheme before the Bill was on the Statute Book, instead of inquisitiveness on that side of the House we should have the most violent denunciations. It is perfectly obvious that we are not entitled to go ahead of the House of Commons in the way in which I am being encouraged to do by so Bolshevist a Member as the hon. Member for Barnstaple. As the Bill makes its way through its various stages, and as we get nearer to the time
when it will become a statute, we will get nearer and nearer to an understanding with the Treasury on this matter as laid down in the Money Resolution which Members of the Committee, I again assume, have carefully read.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I interrupt? There is mention of the Treasury under Paragraph (a) but I do not see any mention in Paragraph (b).

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is a little impatient. I am on the point of the central administration of the commissioners, salaries, emoluments and pensions. That, I say, as laid down in the Money Resolution, is a matter for discussion and agreement with the Treasury, and such discussions are going on at the present time. As is laid down in the Financial Memorandum it is not anticipated that the additional cost from the development in contemplation will be more than £6,000 per year. I come now to the second part of the Resolution which deals with the question of superannuation.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I ask, if the right hon. Gentleman has got no cut and dried scheme, what is the basis of his estimate?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The subtlety of hon. Members opposite increases as the night goes on. I said that we were discussing this question now with the Treasury. I said that the House could be assured that whatever the cost would be it would not exceed £6,000 every year. The question of superannuation is a matter which will not affect a large number of people, but it is the source of a particular problem for the Board of Control. Quite clearly, people who are to have such heavy responsibilities with regard to mental disease must be people who have considerable knowledge of this question, and, as vacancies occur, it may be desirable to reinforce the staff from people who are engaged in the mental hospital service. But it is difficult to attract these people into the service, because, as the law stands now, they lose their superannuation rights, and because cases may occur where men would not serve a sufficient number of years—the necessary minimum is ten years—to qualify for the pension he would have got had he continued in the local government service. The arrangements under Clause
11 (8) of the Bill are designed to get over that difficulty by spreading the burden of superannuation over the Board Control service and service for these various public authorities under which the com missioner has served in the mental hospital service, so that he should not be deprived of his right in the circumstances. The intention is, as hon. Members will see if they study Clause 11, sub-section (7), that proportionate charges shall be borne by the local authority or authorities by whom the officer had been previously employed and by the Board of Control itself. That, I think, answers the main points which have already been raised and, as the House has agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill without a Division and has indeed shown itself so fond of the Bill that it wanted to keep it on the floor of the House for the Committee stage, I should imagine the Committee would be prepared to agree now to give me the Money Resolution.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman, in his very lucid speech, did not explain a little further about this estimated additional cost, because on a Money Resolution the Committee is entitled to know what the probable cost is going to be to the country as a whole. That is the point of this complicated financial procedure which we indulge in after the Second Reading of a Bill. On page 2, paragraph 5, of the Financial Memorandum it says:
So far as at present can be foreseen, however, it is not expected that the additional cost will exceed £6,000 a year.
The Minister said in his speech that, if he came with a cut-and-dried scheme, we would have criticised him. I do not know on what grounds he has assumed that, but I am quite prepared to criticise him on the ground that he has given us no explanation of how he reached that additional sum of £6,000. Is that all the extra charge the taxpayer will have to meet for this reconstituted Board of Control? After his conversations with the Treasury, he must have some idea of the basis of their calculations. If he considers what the duties are that are going to be placed on the Board of Control and himself by the Bill, I think he will agree that it is perfectly fantastic to suggest that the duties which the Board of Control as the central authority are
going to undertake can be carried out for an additional cost of not more than £6,000 a year.
Let me refresh his memory as to what are the duties of the Board of Control. Under the first Clause, he will find that any voluntary boarder may be received in any hospital or nursing home approved by the Board of Control or with the consent of the Board into single care. Those are two functions of the Board. First of all, they have to approve the hospital or nursing home and, secondly, they have to consent to single care. My argument is that the functions of the Board are so great that it is not possible to carry them out at the figure of £6,000 a year. On the second page, we find a recommendation has to be signed if a certain person is approved by the Board of Control. That is another function. On page 3, where a person is received as a Voluntary boarder notice of his reception has to be sent to the Board of Control by the person in charge. In the next Clause, if the person dies, a notice has to be sent to them. If a person is under 16 and certain things happen, the person in charge has to send to the Board of Control a report of the circumstances. In Clause 3 any commissioner may at any time visit a person received and report to the Board of Control. If you are going to make the Board of Control responsible for all these things you are asking a good deal of them if you think you can do it with only an extra cost of £6,000 a year, especially as the right hon. Gentleman has not given us any basis on which he has made his estimate.
To continue my review of their duties, on the same page to which I was referring it is provided that the Board of Control have to decide with regard to voluntary boarders, while on the next page the Board of Control have to deal with the temporary patient and his admission into a hospital or nursing home approved by the Board. Further on, it is provided that with their consent he may be admitted into single care. On page 5 of the Bill, in the same Clause, there is a provision about the approval of the Board for a medical practitioner. Again, in another Sub-section the Bill makes it necessary to report to the Board of Control if such a temporary patient dies. The Board of Control, therefore, is evidently going to be kept very busy. In Sub-
section (9) of the same Clause there is another proviso that in the area within the immediate jurisdiction of the Board of Control the duty imposed by the Section on the visitors of licensed houses shall be performed by the Board of Control. In the next Sub-section there is another kind of report to be sent to the Board of Control, while in Sub-section (13) the Board, again, have to make rules under a Sub-section of the principal Act. In Sub-section (14) there is a description of what the Board of Control may at any time order.
On the next page, in Clause 6, Subsection (2), the approval of the Board of Control is necessary for certain things which local authorities may do. An hon. Member asks me if this will be day work or piece work, but, if the right hon. Gentleman had only told us on what he based his estimates, we might have saved ourselves a good deal of night work. In Sub-section (3) of this Clause there are various things set out which a local authority again has power to do, but always subject to the approval of the Board of Control. In Clause 8, one finds a provision for the appointment of a supervising medical officer, again subject to the approval of the Board of Control, while in Sub-section (6) of Clause 11 it is provided that the Board of Control shall have power to appoint assistant commissioners. Under Clause 12 the Chairman of the Board of Control, after consultation with the members of the Board, shall be made responsible for making arrangements as to the administrative business of the Board and so forth. In Clause 13, there are further references to the discretion of the Board of Control, while their powers are also referred to in Clause 15, where they are given power to make rules.
To sum up, there are in this Bill alone 24 different duties specifically cast on the Board of Control. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that a Board with such multifarious occupations as have been imposed upon them by this Bill must require for the performance of all these functions a good deal of administrative background in order to be able to carry out all these different duties. Events will prove that £6,000 alone is not enough. If hon. Members will be good enough to read the Financial Memorandum in connection with this Bill, they will find
that borne out. I am sorry that he did not explain to us what is meant by local authority "A" and "B." I am sure the Committee will not expect me to go into detail with regard to the complicated financial scheme between the two authorities.
1.0 a.m.
That is a thing which the committee must leave to the future. But, with regard to the administrative expenses and the word "control" I think the Minister or the Financial Secretary of the Treasury might give us some information as to what they themselves think of the estimate of £6,000, and whether they really do not think that with all these twenty-four items which I have already enumerated the expenses will be more than £6,000 in the course of the year.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: We have had some long and fairly interesting speeches, and it is a little difficult to know which speech to begin on and which to end on. As the hour is getting somewhat late, I think, perhaps, I ought, first, to comment on the Minister's speech. He referred to the fact that this discussion had been somewhat long to-day, but there are still one or two points I would like to raise. I see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is here. In the first place, I want to know what is going to be the salary of the Chairman. Presumably, he will have a high salary. I also want to know, and several people want to know—quite a lot of people want to know—what salary the Chairman is getting at the present time. We have heard a good deal about the estimate of £6,000. I admit that the Minister did not know where he had got that figure. There are five people mentioned and that £6,000 to get really efficient people is not going very far. I think we might be told how the money is going to be apportioned. There are two other points about which I want to know. These Commissioners will have to deal with a great variety of people in different places and I want to know—this is most important—if one of them will have a knowledge of Welsh. That is quite a serious point. I am sorry if I may seem to have been unduly critical of the Minister. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). This is a growing expenditure
in many ways, and I protest against that. But I would like to say that not a single penny of this expenditure goes to Scotland in any shape or form.

Mr. J. JONES: Having listened to all the mental experts in the course of this discussion, I wish to say that there are many institutions which are going to get the money, and I do not care who gets it if the people get benefit. As regards salaries, those of us who are members of local authorities know that we often make big mistakes in paying small salaries to good men and lose them in the process of sacrificing efficiency for the sake of economy. Hon. Members opposite are always talking about economy, but they are always full of extravagance when their own interests are affected. I want to say that this £6,000 may be a small estimate—I hope this is just an estimate—but, if it cost £60,000, if it was going to do half what the Minister has in mind with regard to mental administration—I have had some experience of mental deficiency since I have been in this House—it would be money well invested. I have said it before in the House and outside: there are people in our asylums to-day who ought not to be there at all. You see children mixing with people who are hopelessly incapable and insane, all together in the same ward. Those who have had experience on local authorities know that. If any effort can be made so to arrange things that those who are not so badly placed shall be segregated from those who are badly placed and that they shall receive some training to bring them back to normal as near as we can, it will be a blessing worth £60,000, let alone £6,000.
I am not particular about the Control Board. There are too many experts, and there is not enough humanity. People who know, who have been through the mill—I myself might have been certified years ago but still I think I am as sane as anyone who has spoken to-night—realise how great is the need to do something. As far as we are concerned, let us get through the Committee stage of this Bill, and let us have a real Board of Control, not comprised of medical experts—though I owe a debt of gratitude to them myself; I just escaped—I would like a human Board of Control, not merely of
medical experts but of human experts, of men and women who have gone through the mill themselves. Let the cost be whatever it is. Poverty is the principal cause of this disease. Seventy-five per cent. of the men and women we have in our asylums are the victims of poverty. They were perhaps mentally deficient, but they have been starved into insanity. Therefore, conditions have made them what they are. It is better to spend £60,000 in preventing insanity than to save £6,000 in not having a chance to live.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

RAILWAYS (VALUATION FOR RATING) BILL.

Order for Second Heading read.

Sir K. WOOD: Before the right hon. Gentleman begins, might I make an appeal. Surely it is not intended, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take a Bill of this character now?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): Order. There if no Question before the House.

Sir K. WOOD: I shall move to report Progress for that purpose, because this is a Bill which contains 23 Clauses.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I submit that that Motion is not in order either.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: It is perfectly disgraceful. It is a scandal taking the Bill at this hour.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir K. Wood) himself wasted the time of the House by his obstruction?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House at the present time.

Sir K. WOOD: When you came into the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I was about to move to report Progress.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member must remember that we are not in Committee.

Sir K. WOOD: I was moving to report Progress, and Mr. Deputy-Speaker put the Question.

HON. MEMBERS: "No.!"

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I move that the consideration of the Second Reading of this Bill be deferred? I cannot be charged with obstruction, because I have not spoken in the Debate, and I have some claim to move this Motion because on the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock rule I called the attention of the Prime Minister to the Bill, and I am quite sure that it was not his intention to take it at this time of the morning. I can only speak for myself, however, and on this occasion I am bound to make this Motion. I do not suppose there are three hon. Members who have read the Bill. It was only printed on the 11th of this month, and was only available on Friday last. The Bill effects

a revolution in the method of valuation of railways in Great Britain; that is to say, it affects rating and valuation also. The last figure which I read in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the amount involved was £16,000,000 a year. It is a Bill that is important, highly technical and difficult.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand there is no Question before the House. The only Motion which the hon. Member can move is, "That this House do now adjourn."

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 132.

Division No. 169.]
AYES.
[1.20 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pybus, Percy John


Aske, Sir Robert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Remer, John R.


Beaumont, M. W.
Hardie, George D.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boyce, H. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bracken, B.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Morriman, Sir F. Boyd
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Muirhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ford, Sir P. J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glassey, A. E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Egan, W. H.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton;
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Gibbins, Joseph
Logan, David Gilbert


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)
Longbottom, A. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Gill, T. H.
Longden, F.


Arnott, John
Gossling, A. G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gould, F.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Barnes, Alfred John
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine).
McElwee, A.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McEntee, V. L.


Bennett, William (Battertsea, South)
Hardie, George D.
McShane, John James


Benson, G.
Haycock, A. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hayes, John Henry
Marcus, M.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Markham, S. F.


Brooke, W.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marley, J.


Brothers, M.
Herriotts, J.
Marshall, Fred


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hoffman, P. C.
Mathers, George


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hopkin, Daniel
Matters, L. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Horrabin, J. F.
Messer, Fred


Chater, Daniel
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, J.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Daggar, George
Kelly, W. T.
Morley, Ralph


Dallas, George
Kennedy, Thomas
Mort, D. L.


Dalton, Hugh
Kinley, J.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lang, Gordon
Noel Baker, P. J.


Dukes, C.
Lathan, G.
Oldfield, J. R.


Duncan, Charles
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Palin, John Henry.


Ede, James Chuter
Lawrence, Susan
Paling, Wilfrid


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Leach, W.
Perry, S. F.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Shillaker, J. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Potts, John S.
Simmons, C. J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Price, M. P.
Sinkinson, George
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Westwood, Joseph


Ritson, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Romeril, H. G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Rowson, Guy
Sorensen, R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sullivan, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sanders, W. S.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sandham, E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester Loughb'gh)


Sawyer, G. F.
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Townend, A. E.



Sherwood, G. H.
Vaughan, D. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shield, George William
Wallace, H. W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thomas Henderson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: It is a perfect scandal.

Sir K. WOOD: An incompetent Government.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time."
Perhaps hon. Members will now let me speak. No one in this House deplores more than I do the fact that we are here to-night. We are here at this moment very largely by the wishes of hon. Members opposite. When last Thursday the business was announced, it was a fair day's work. It is clear to me that on a Bill on which there was no division we could have arrived at agreement much earlier than we have done. This is not a Bill of a highly controversial character.

HON. MEMBERS: It will be.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Sincerity in politics! The principle of this Bill is simple, and, as a principle, it was accepted by the late Government. Hon. Members know it. It is a Bill, the substance of which was before the House in part of the Eating and Valuation Bill in 1925. Since then, as a result of negotiations, it has been possible to arrive at a measure of common agreement between the various interests affected, and, if the House agrees on the principle on which the agreement has been based, the minor questions of adjustment are for Committee consideration. I want to put to the House that it is impossible to reject the principle of the Bill which is now before us. The principle is a simple one. It is a principle which has been in operation in Scotland for over half-a-century. It is a principle which one Commission after another has recommended for adoption in England and Wales, and
it is this, that in future railway undertakings should be valued as a whole instead of in small parochial sections. This is a principle to which clearly no objection can be taken by the House even if there may be criticisms to be made as to the details in which this principle is to be applied.
Since the general principle was enunciated in 1925 by those who are now offering to oppose it, there have been prolonged negotiations between the representatives of the local authorities and of the railway companies with a view to the detailed application of it. On the one hand, we have had the five big railway companies, and, on the other hand, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the National Conference of Assessment Committees, the London County Council, the Metropolitan Boroughs Joint Standing Committee, bodies all of them acting through representatives with a wide experience of assessment problems, and, more latterly, we have had in these negotiations the Central Valuation Committee which was constituted under the Act passed by the late Government in 1925. Now all those bodies, representative as they are of the local authorities of the country, and all the railway companies, agree that valuation on the old parochial basis is utterly fantastic and unfair. We are trying to carry on with an outworn system of assessment and valuation which has broken down. We have tried to carry on by patching up outworn assessments in many cases made before the War, and it is quite clear, more especially in view of the Local Government Act of the late Government, that the serious situation in which the local authorities find themselves should be dealt with at a very early stage.
The railway companies, on the one hand, and the local authorities on the other, have arrived at agreement. This is an agreement between two sets of bodies whose interests are not identical. The railway companies quite naturally wish to reduce to the minimum what they will be called upon to pay to the local authorities in the way of rates. The local authorities, on the other hand, quite naturally wish to extract as much as they can from them in the way of rates. The fact, therefore, that the local authorities and the railway companies have agreed to the machinery whereby this valuation is to be determined seems to me to justify the view that the machinery is the right kind of machinery and adequate to its purpose. Unless we are to have a breakdown of our valuation machinery in many areas, it is necessary to get the Royal Assent for this Bill at a very early stage. I do not therefore propose to go in detail over the Clauses of the Bill. I am trying to free myself from the complaint which has been made against me that I have spoken too long.
The bulk of this Bill consists of detailed machinery provisions which are designed to carry into effect this general valuation of the railways and the apportionment of resources to the various local authorities in the country. Railway undertakings have, of course, to be defined. That is not an easy problem as was found in the legislation in the first year. Certain categories of railway property, dwelling houses, refreshment rooms, which can be separately assessed from the railway undertaking itself, will continue to be separately assessed, but the railway-owned canals and docks and subsidiary undertakings attached to the railways will form part of the general scheme. Now, in order that the valuation shall be fair, it is quite clear that it must be made by a national assessment authority for England and Wales, and the Bill provides for the establishment of such a body with a paid chairman possessing legal qualifications and appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and nine members appointed by the Minister of Health, six of them on the recommendation of the local authorities of the country, including the London County Council, and three of them at the discretion of the Minister.
But, as certain of our railway companies run through England and Scotland, it will be necessary to have a joint body which represents both England and Scotland, because of the need for the valuation of railways extending into both of them. The Bill, therefore, provides for the setting up of a joint authority for the two countries, consisting of the Chairman of the English authority and one other member appointed by the English authority and the Scottish Assessor of Railways and Canals. This body will be concerned with the determination of the assessment of railway hereditaments and the preparation of a great railway valuation roll. When the valuation has been determined, it will then be necessary to apportion that among the individual hereditaments and calculate the value of each of them from the valuations which have been apportioned. The valuation has to be based on the average net receipts of the railways over a period of years. Special arrangements have to be made in the case of the London Midland & Scottish Railway and the London & North Eastern Railway, because of the fact that they run between the two countries, and provision clearly must be made for appeals. It is obvious that local authorities, on the one hand and the railway companies on the other, will not always see eye to eye. In the case of appeals, they are to lie with the Railway and Canal Commissioners. In order to consult further the interests of both the authorities and the railway companies, there is a further appeal from the Railway and Canal Commissioners to the House of Lords, the House of Lords being suggested as the only superior court that has jurisdiction in England and Scotland.
I do not think that any Member of the House can take objection to the proposals in the Bill. It is true that agreement had not been reached when the proposal was originally made in this House from the opposite benches, and quite clearly therefore they cannot object to the Second Reading of this Bill. We all object to it being two o'clock in the morning, but I am sure the House is anxious that the Bill, which is one of urgency and which is really necessary to our local authorities—unless there is to be a revolt among them against the present method—should be passed into law as quickly as possible. I have tried to make it clear to the House that there can be
no objection to the principle of the Bill, and, if there are criticisms in detail as to the machinery of the Bill, those are questions which can be appropriately settled in the Committee stage. "With reasonableness that ought to come to people at this hour of the night, I feel that the Bill is one which we ought to get and one to which exception in principle cannot be taken in any quarter of the House.

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Second Reading of this Bill, occupied a considerable amount of time in criticising the Opposition on the attitude that they have taken up, not to this Bill, but to the proceedings in taking the Bill at this hour of the night.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Less time than your interruptions.

HON. MEMBERS: "Order."

Sir K. WOOD: I do not hesitate to say that this is a disgraceful way of conducting the business of the House, and I shall take my time. The right hon. Gentleman has been treated with every consideration by the Opposition to-day. He introduced, at the beginning of our proceedings a very important Measure which—and no one, I think, will question me—would naturally occupy a day of our proceedings. In fact, the day's proceedings was interfered with by Private Business from half-past seven until ten o'clock, and we were in consequence unable to continue the discussion on the Bill. We endeavoured to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and he secured, not only the Second Reading of that Bill, but also the Financial Resolution. No one can say that he has been treated unfairly. I think he is making a great mistake in forcing the Second Reading of this Bill to-night. If he had been a wise man, he would not have moved it. The fact of the matter is that the Government have so grossly mismanaged their business that they are bound at a quarter to two in the morning to move the Second Reading of a Measure which is of very considerable importance and extent.
The right hon. Gentleman said quite rightly that this measure had been subject to considerable discussion for a long period. It was a. case of great complexity and difficulty, and the right hob Gentleman tells us that agreement was only
reached on Thursday last, and yet we are asked, having only received the Bill on Thursday, on Monday at a quarter to two in the morning to proceed with the Second Reading. I say that is an abuse of the position of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] There is no one here to guide; where is the Leader of the House? I do feel that, if the Leader, or the Deputy-Leader of the House, had been here, this course would not have been taken, and I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to take this Bill. It is absolutely impossible now to go into a difficult Bill of this nature, involving very considerable and important points of principle. As far as I am concerned, the Minister must take the responsibility, and on the rest of the Bill he must not resent opposition.

Mr. E. BROWN: We were justified in asking for this Bill to be deferred. A Bill of this type does not discuss a single principle when you are dealing with the complex question of rating and valuation. It raises a multitude of complexities. Therefore, on the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind, the House is entitled to have an authoritative explanation of the main meaning and the main machinery. I propose for a moment or two to address my mind to that problem. I am without expert advice to give an accurate explanation of what the Bill means, but I can, and I think it is my duty to, call the attention of the House to certain outstanding things which the Bill proposes, because I am not by any means sure that when the country examines the Bill there will be the same unanimous agreement that the fundamental principle of the Bill is as outlined by the right hon. Gentleman.
The more I look at this Bill the less I like the machinery set up in it. It is perfectly true that the main suggestion of the Bill is incorporated in the Rating and Valuation Bill of 1925 which had eleven Clauses with the horrible title of Anglo-Scottish Clauses. There is one original thing in the Bill which I do not think I have ever seen before. Apparently, England also means Wales, for there is no mention of Wales. I presume the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will have something to say about that later on. It is a small point, but, apart from the Anglo-Scottish Sec-
tion of this Bill which was incorporated in 1923, there were 11 Clauses—36 to 46—which were withdrawn in Committee. Let me give the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of that Bill:
The Government have decided, in view of the shortness of time that is available, not to proceed with that part of the Bill which deals with the valuation of railways and special properties. That does not mean that these Clauses are abandoned. They are only postponed and will have to reappear in the form of another Bill which will be reintroduced "—
I ask the House to mark this,
in the early part of next year.
It was therefore the expectation of those who drafted the scheme in the Bill that early criticism upon the principle of the thing would be secured. That was in 1925. There was no Bill in 1926 or 1927, and now, in 1930, the Minister has only just concluded negotiations between the two parties concerned. I think we have had altogether too much railways in this House in the last seven months. We are told that the railways are agreed with the representative associations of local authorities in this matter. But we have heard no mention of another great body of people—the ratepayers. If the Parliamentary Secretary replies before the debate is over, will she tell us whether efforts have been made to take into consideration the effect of this Bill on other ratepayers.
It is an important and highly technical Bill; it is an obscure Bill, it is a Bill of 23 Clauses and Schedules, and it will take hon. Members all next month, workday and night, to understand them without the help of the Ministry of Health. The Bill affects not merely every parish through which a railway undertaking runs, whether in Wales or Scotland or England, but it also affects the ratepayers in these parishes if it so happens that the apportionment under the Bill when the railway happens to have a portion less rates than it now possesses. In that case, the ratepayers will have to make good the deficiency. I think it will be agreed that in the circumstances it is an important matter of principle that is involved in the Bill. Let me put this thing in a concrete form. My excuse, apart from that of being an ordinary Member of this House, for bringing this to the notice of the Prime Minister at Question Time is
that rating and valuation always involves docks and harbours, and I feel it my duty to my constituents to examine any such Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill lays down the procedure for valuing hereditaments in England and in the course of that it defines a railway. Let me read the definition:
For the purposes of this Act—
'Railway Company' means a railway company to which this Act for the time being applies;
'Undertaking' in relation to a railway company includes, in addition to the principal undertaking of the company,—(a) any canal, dock or harbour undertaking carried on by the company.
Now there is all round the coast of Great Britain the most intense competition for freights between one port and another and between dock undertakings owned by municipalities or by trustees and those owned by railway companies. Railway companies do not scruple to make it easy for railway dock undertakings to compete with other dock undertakings in the matter of charges. The Secretary of State for Scotland knows there is the keenest competition between the two ports on the Firth of Forth.

An HON. MEMBER: He is asleep.

Mr. BROWN: I know my right hon. Friend too well to imagine that he is asleep at this moment. If this apportionment is made, I do not know how it will work out. It may be made with regard to what I may call live undertakings, that is, the running part of the undertaking, or it may be with regard to what I may call the dead part of the undertaking, that is, fixtures, docks, and harbours. There may be a greatly diminished apportionment to a railway company, dock, or harbour in Fife, so that they would be able, because they pay less in rates, to lower their charges. This would be bound to affect the Trust's dock. That is one illustration. When I went through the Bill, I got in touch with the Dock and Harbour Association. Let me read what they say about it:
It provides for the constitution of a Railway Assessment Authority whose duty it will be to determine the net annual value of a railway company's undertaking as a whole and apportion that value among all the railway hereditaments occupied by the company in accordance with an apportionment scheme made by the authority.
A railway company's undertaking by Clause 1 (3, a) includes any canal dock or harbour undertaking carried on by the company.
The independent dock authorities are naturally vitally interested in seeing that railway-owned docks are not more favourably treated in regard to local rates than their competitors, and they feel that the Bill should contain proper safeguards on this point and give also the independent docks the opportunity of being heard in opposition to any scheme of apportionment framed under the Bill.
2.0 a.m.
If this is true of canals and docks it may be true of thousands of other undertakings competing with railway companies. The Bill mentions:

(a) any canal, dock or harbour undertaking carried on by the company;
(b) any subsidiary or ancillary undertaking carried on by the company, not being a road transport, sea-transport or air-transport undertaking;—
I think we are entitled to have an explanation of that—
and
(c) the share of the company in any joint railway undertaking carried on by, or on behalf of, two or more railway companies; but save as aforesaid, does not include the share of the company in any joint under taking;
One set of railway hereditaments—I prefer the Scottish word "heritages"—is omitted from the definition of "undertaking" and the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) will probably agree. The Clause says:
Provided that no premises occupied as a dwelling-house, hotel or place of public refreshment, or so let out as to be capable of separate assessment, 6hall be deemed to be, or to form part of, a railway hereditament.

Mr. J. JONES: Is that a Scottish joke?

Mr. BROWN: No, it is not a joke. It is a serious statement in the Government Bill. I think the House is entitled to more information than it has had about this procedure and this definition. Let me take another point, the question of the procedure to be followed. The whole House and the country will agree that the present practice of valuing railways is a complicated one. They are situated in many parishes, but the valuation is a parochial one. Valuers have to try to ascertain what is the rent a hypothetical lessee in a particular parish would pay for that plot of land. It is an absurd and impossible method, as the Minister said,
and it has been made more difficult by amalgamations. What does the Bill propose to do? It proposes to set up a central valuation authority. I call the attention of the House to the fact that under the original proposals the authority was to consist of seven persons. It now consists of ten. We have the chairman and we have three persons to be appointed by the Minister—these are three additional members. There are other persons to be appointed under the Bill by the London County Council, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, the Urban District Councils Association, and the Rural District Councils Association. Now we return to Scotland. Have the local authorities there equal consultation? What do we find? We find an alteration of the Scottish system, because there is now to be a joint authority to deal with valuation and apportionment of the valuation of that part of the valuation which affects companies running jointly in England and Scotland. There are three persons on that Committee. One is the Chairman of the Railway Assessment Authority. The Chairman of one is to be the Chairman of the other. There is to be a second member appointed by the English Committee. On the Committee dealing with the joint affairs of Scotland there is to be only one person cognizant and having a direct knowledge of the Scottish position, the Assessor of Railways and Canals for Scotland.
If the English people are entitled to make their valuation and apportionment, and draw up their scheme, surely the Scottish local authorities ought to have one or two extra members on the Joint Authority. If the valuation is badly done; if the scheme of apportionment is badly made, it is true that under the Bill interested bodies., such as local authorities, may make representations, but there is no right of appeal under the Bill for persons other than local authorities. If the Minister is to have an easy passage for the Bill, he should make sure that any body of aggrieved persons may have a right to appeal against an unfair assessment.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the preparation of the schemes. I am sorry the Minister did not say more about that as it is the crux
of the Bill. We begin with a common valuation for the whole of the country with regard to railways. The apportionment is made between the railway companies and each parish in which they run. In Scotland, it is not quite so simple. You have first to have an apportionment covering the whole of Great Britain—the whole of England and Scotland and then, when you have done that, you have to have a Scottish apportionment from the joint appointment, and then you have to sub-divide the apportionment among the local authorities in Scotland. It is important that the House should try to address itself to the extraordinary implications if the scheme is badly drawn up. I see the Bill has two appointed days, and there are certain temporary arrangements if the Bill is not ready and the schemes are not ready by the appointed day, so why this hurry by the Government. Let us look at the procedure. They are to lay down first before they apportion the values:

"(a) The principles in accordance with which in the case of every railway company the net annual value of the company's undertaking as a whole, or the net annual value of the company's undertaking as a whole in so far as it is not carried on in England, as the case may be, is to be apportioned by the Authority between the railway hereditaments in England occupied by the company; and
(b) the basis on which the expenses of the Authority are to be apportioned among the councils of the several counties and county boroughs in England.
(2) The principles laid down in any scheme made under this Section shall be such as to secure that the Authority in apportioning the net annual value of a railway undertaking as a whole, or the net annual value of the undertaking as a whole in so far as it is carried on in England, shall—

(i) in the case of hereditaments consisting of land used only as a railway made under the powers of any Act of Parliament for public conveyance, have regard, amongst other material considerations', to an estimate of the traffic conveyed over the hereditament; and—
That is what I ventured to describe some moments ago as the live part of the undertaking—

"(ii) in the case of other hereditaments, have regard … to the value for the purposes of a railway undertaking of the land and structures comprised in the hereditament."
That is what I meant by the dead part of the undertaking. It is to me obscure whether or no, over the whole process,
you are to take either or both. Such authorities as I am interested in, like the dock and harbour authorities, are vitally interested to know what is in the minds of the Ministry when they talked about schemes of this kind and the apportionment of the values made under these schemes. The least the Ministry can give us on Second Beading is an assurance that, before this Bill goes to Committee, if there are dock and harbour authorities that wish, after having had technical advice on the matter, to be heard, those authorities will have an opportunity of putting their case. It may be that it may turn out to be in their favour and that they will not wish to do so, but I suspect that the railway company's advisers will be shrewd enough to see that their own docks are not unfavourably placed in comparison with the docks of their own undertakings. There are many other points in the Bill to which the House might address itself on Second Reading, and I do not make any apology for having so long detained the House.

Captain CAZALET: I should like to join in the protest made by the last speaker at the manner in which this Bill has been introduced at this very late hour. I and many other Members who tried to study the complications of the Rating and Valuation Act and the Derating Act were constantly brought up against the difficulties of the question of the railways and of the rates they paid. The House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) who appeared to be far better informed about the Bill than did the Minister. He has helped us to understand it. He has put before us some very sensible objections to various parts of the Bill to which it is doubtful if we shall now ever get any reply from the Ministers who are responsible. If the Ministers of the Crown are going now to abandon all the traditions of courtesy towards this House in the introduction of a Bill, that is no reason why we on these benches should abrogate our rights as an Opposition.
This is a Bill of some 23 Clauses. The Minister has dismissed it in a few sentences, most of which were directed against the tactics of the Opposition. He evidently foresaw that we were not quite so simple as to allow a complicated
Measure of this kind, which affects every constituency in the country and which affects every ratepayer in every constituency, to get its Second Reading without wanting to know the why and the wherefore of it. He thought at one time that we were so simple and took so little interest that we would allow a Bill of this character to get a Second Reading in a few minutes. I protest most strongly against these tactics. I would be perfectly prepared even at this late hour to sit and listen to a reasoned statement from the Minister. The attitude he has adopted has, however, compelled me to rise and make this protest.

Commander SOUTHBY: I have no desire to detain the House at this late hour, but I should like to join in making a protest against the way in which the Minister has behaved over this Bill. I had hoped, when the Minister said he would insist on taking the Bill to-night, that he would do us the favour of giving us some clear explanation of the Bill. He talked to us a great deal about the principles of the Bill. We waited and waited to hear what they were, but we did not hear one of them.

Miss WILKINSON: That is just not true.

Commander SOUTHBY: The hon. lady is courteous as usual.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: On a point of Order. Is it in order for one hon. Member of this House to say, with reference to the statement of another, that it is simply not true.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is certainly out of order and ought not to be done again.

Commander SOUTHBY: I will not trouble to ask the hon. Lady to withdraw. We are much indebted to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who took the trouble to give us some technical points about the Bill. It was not fair of the Minister to have accused us of having delayed the business of the House. I cannot be accused of that, because I was interested in a Bill which was before the House at half-past seven, and I did not speak on it, because it was obvious that the House was anxious to divide and get on with the work. I was also anxious to speak on the Bill before this one, but I did not speak. It is, therefore, not fair of the
Minister to accuse us of having delayed the business. I ask the hon. Lady now whether she will not even at this stage reconsider the decision and allow time for discussion of this Bill at a better hour than the present, and thus allow us to go properly into a very complicated Measure which, as my hon. Friend has just said, affects every single constituency and every ratepayer. We have a right on such a Bill to a more lucid explanation from those in charge of it. It is a complicated Bill, and the House is entitled to discuss it in a quiet and reasonable atmosphere. I would again ask the hon. Lady to reconsider the decision and give the House an opportunity of discussing the Bill in a quiet atmosphere when we can know something about it.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I would like the Government to give us some indication of how they propose to apportion the amounts, which the railways are going to contribute to the rates, to the rural areas through which the railways run. There is no mention in the Bill about any division which is likely to be fair to the rural areas. As the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has said so well, the railway valuation is divided into two parts, a live part and a dead part. The actual amount of the value of the railway which passes through the country districts is considerable, and, if there be any uncertainty at all about the country districts, it is entirely due to the Minister not having given us the benefit of his knowledge. We are entirely in the dark as to whether there is or is not any apportionment at all to the rural areas. I am very glad that the hon. Lady is so interested that she is actually taking a note of it. If she is not interested, I should feel it my duty to elaborate the point. There is an extraordinary Clause—Clause 17—which has not been dealt with. Apparently, a railway company's valuation roll is not to be rendered invalid by delay in completion. That is a tremendous safeguard to the railway. I should like to know whether that is the usual practice. I should like to know why they are put in this privileged position. We have a right to have some answer. I just want to emphasise one other thing even at this late hour, I should like to remind the Government that their members have had more than their share of the Debate in this House,
and I maintain that we have a perfect right to keep the Government up for this Bill.

Dr. BURGIN: As one who has had considerable experience in matters of rating and valuation, I must confess not to understand clearly the principle which is said to underlie this Bill. I feel that the House would like a little explanation from the Minister introducing this Bill on the Second Reading even at this hour of the morning, having had a very imperfect explanation. In the constituency of Bedfordshire, which I represent, both the London, Midland and Scottish and the London and North Eastern Railways pass through, and there is branch line from the one to the other. I was very much impressed by the arguments used by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), which were matters of enormous consequence. I must not, however, be taken to be applauding the method of valuing railways for existing purposes. That there is need for a change is admitted. This House requires to be convinced that the principle underlying the Bill now introduced by the Government is the right principle for the change which is proposed—to have a national assessment of the railway undertakings. I want to know a little more, and I ask entirely for information and not in a spirit of criticism. Does this new scheme mean that the valuation is to take place twice? This is a real question, and not an obstruction query. We want some lucid information for the purpose and benefit of local assessment committees, and I trust I may have an answer on that question and the method a local assenment committee has to adopt with regard to this question of assessment.
There is one other matter to which I desire to call attention at this moment, and that is the question of appeals under Clause 9. Is the appeal against the method of arriving at the total figure or against the difference referred to the Railway and Canal Commissioners? The Railway and Canal Commissioners is a most distinguished body, but no one would say that at present it is overworked. It is one of those rare bodies that have comparatively little business to do of an extremely select intricate and technical character, That appeal tribunal became a tribunal to deal with assessments from any one
of the parishes or from any person aggrieved. The Bill is one which to a lawyer practising before the Railway and Canal Commission carries with it certain feelings of joy, because business will be enormously increased, but also certain feelings of consideration as a member of the public. I should like to ask the hon. Lady this question: Has any thought been given at all to the possibility of extreme congestion in the Railway and Canal Commission by the possibility of appeals on a large scale in connection with the assessment of the railways?
It is quite apparent to me that the Bill has a very large number of points arising which are not Committee points at all and which are proper Second Reading points. I go with the Government to the extent of saying that the present method of assessing railways is wrong and that a national way is better and that once you have a national assessment there must be apportionment, but the machinery by which a national assessment and apportionment is dovetailed into the parochial machinery is not clear, and the system of appeals seems to me to take them to that tribunal which I think is ill-suited for this increased volume of work which is bound to follow from a Measure of this kind.

Miss LAWRENCE: I will deal seriatim with the questions that hon. Members have asked. The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin) said the idea was attractive, but he had serious doubts as to whether it would work. I want to point out to him that this Measure has been in force in Scotland for a great number of years, and that railways are assessed as a whole in that country. The system has worked very well in Scotland, and the Scots would shudder at the thought of abolishing that system and carrying out the valuation of railways parish by parish. In England they have a scheme of temporary agreements. Some of our railways have not been re-assessed since the War. Further, the operation of the Valuation Act, 1929, makes it urgent that we should have the present Bill. Assessment on these lines is in force in Scotland; the railway companies and the local authorities have agreed to it; and it has been recommended by a whole series of Royal Commissions.
Let me run through the Bill and mention the chief points as they come to my recollection. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) fell foul of the term "England." The conquest of Wales was made by the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), the previous Minister of Health, in the Local Government Act of 1929, which has a little Section which says that for all purposes Wales shall be included in England. The hon. Member for Leith asked what railway property meant. It means everything used for the purposes of the railway except two or three things excluded in Clause 1. There is no particular reason in valuing a hotel by a national authority when the local committee can deal with it better than a national authority. Then there was a good deal of misunderstanding with regard to what happens to the Scottish railways, and I will repeat that the Scottish railways are valued in accordance with the principles of this Bill. With regard to another question, I may say that on the first page of the Bill, it is stated that the Act applies to the
several amalgamated companies constituted under the Railways Act, 1921, and the Metropolitan Railway Company, and any other railway company to which it is applied by a scheme submitted and approved in accordance with the provisions contained in the First Schedule to this Act.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Surely, the Bill has only been in possession of hon. Members since Friday. How could we, in view of the business the Government have given us to do, make a study of it?

Miss LAWRENCE: Hon. Members have had a splendid opportunity of informing themselves of the rating system in Scotland during the past years.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Lady has given a very good excuse, but she knows that there are many other differences still and that if the Bill had been in the hands of hon. Members a number of days she would not have got away with that.

Miss LAWRENCE: I really did think the hon. Member for Leith knew everything that there was to be known about rating. The question was raised by him that the ratepayers would be affected. Their interests are represented by their councils.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Lady will agree that for many purposes local councils represent ratepayers, but there are many cases in which the railways and the ratepayers are deadly enemies. The assessment of one is the death of the other. It is by no means the case that the interests of the ratepayers and the council are the same.

Miss LAWRENCE: Any representative of the ratepayers will be certain to get as much out of the railways as possible. The more you put the railway assessments up, the more you get without offending any elector. Any local authority which sees a potential gold mine will exploit it as much as possible. Six members of the assessment authority are to be appointed by the London County Council, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee, the Urban District Councils Association, and the Rural Districts Association.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Lady has read what I read out. Where is there any single representative of any Scottish council and any kind of Scottish tribunal to the joint authority?

Miss LAWRENCE: That is another point. I will take it in a moment. We are taking the chairman of the Railway Assessment Committee in England. He is an experienced lawyer appointed by the Lord Chancellor. He is a perfectly independent person, a person whose ability will allow him to discharge this task.

Mr. BROWN: Will he be a Scotsman?

Miss LAWRENCE: Not necessarily. There are a great many Scottish people in English offices. He will be appointed as an expert. One of the other members will be appointed by Scotland and one by England.

Mr. BROWN: There is no appointment by Scotland at all. He is already in office. We know him.

Miss LAWRENCE: He has been appointed an assessor, and he has to take on this new duty, and the chairman has been appointed in England as an impartial person. These are small points. I now come to the question of docks and canals. Under Clause 13, any person, and it includes a company, may make an
appeal to the Minister. The appeal can be made Just as well by a dock or harbour authority as by any local authority. In lines 25 to 40, on page 22, you will see provisions for appeal to the Minister, and I am assured, and I have taken advice, that "persons" does mean "companies." In the Bill there are many interesting points, but I do want to remind Members that this business was adopted in principle in Scotland 40 years ago and was adopted in principle by the Conservative Government nearly five years ago. Here is a subject of protracted negotiations between the persons concerned. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Railways are getting very special treatment in this Bill. Is there any safeguard to make sure that anachronisms such as crossings which are so badly lit are looked after?

Miss LAWRENCE: No, certainly not. This is not a Railway (Regulation) Bill.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: They are rated.

Miss LAWRENCE: This is an assessment Bill. You cannot deal in it with regulation of the railways. I said that
the Bill commended itself to all those qualified to form an opinion who have discussed it outside Parliament. I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I understand the Minister has not dealt with the apportionment to rural areas.

Miss LAWRENCE: After the valuation is made, it is to be apportioned among the parishes. Parishes cover urban and rural districts.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve minutes before Three o'clock a.m.